Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Repeated personal attacks were made by Wikiality123. In spite of request to stop them an uncivil comment is made as follows on discussion page of Hogenakkal Falls article.

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs)

Without spending a long time wading through the contribs, this report (posted by User:Naadapriya) seems to be an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute on Talk:Hogenakkal_Falls. I note that the page is now protected, and hope that dispute resolution will resolve the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to get a'upper hand'. I am just reporting an abusive language by an editor. Admn opinions are requested about above improper language.Naadapriya (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a WP:DIFF showing the uncivil remark? All I can find are examples of Wikiality123 being tirelessly polite to you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read following sentence. Is use of 'BS' acceptable??

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work). You shall be replied to ONLY if you raise any sensible issues. If you start reverting and vandalising then you shall reep the consequences at WP:AN/I. Yes, a warning with all due respect. FYI I already have a feed back from a non-Indian admin on this issue, since I wanted to know if I am the one being stuborn here. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks Naadapriya (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user in question about this thread, and also issued a civility warning. I hope that, from this point on, there will be no incivility from anyone involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me SheffieldSteel. The BS I was refering to was WP:Bullshit. As you may be aware too, it is not a personal attack to comment on edits. More over the overall dispute is pretty open for all to read there. Even in the message that this user has pasted here, I was concluding the statement with with all due respect. I have summarised the action of user:Naadapriya in the user's own talk page itself[1]. I understand what you mean when you said how frustrated you may feel with another editor. Nevertheless, as you or anyone can see, I warned the user that if he/she goes on with the trolling I would go to AN/I and this user has done it before I would do that. I reckon refering to WP:BS is not uncivil, if so I do apologise. FYI you can also refer to this where user:Naadapriya claims refering to him/her as she is a personal attack. Afterall Priya in India is a common female name and the other user's confusion is very valid. The point is, this user has raised flags here just to get his/her own stance stronger. I would request the admin's here to look into the facts themselves if they wish and think I may be over reacting. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since am here I would also like to point out this message from the user:Naadapriya, obviously as soon as you left you left your message on my talk page, since as you yourself said- gaining upper hand. Isn't this uncivil as it is said Lies, such as deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors. I think it is upto you guys here to decide what is right after looking into it. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be I should add one question to my reply. Are the admins going to allow AN/I be misused by an editor to gain upperhand by falsly acusing another editor?. The ball is really in your court chaps. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [2][3] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [4]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. Check out his latest contributions. Also, his user page is very similar to one of the sockpuppets of Pinoybandwagon (User:Bad false). -Danngarcia (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sock case and he other things are no proof that Martindanza is a sock. All that proves is that this Pioybandwagon created loads of sockpuppets.--Phoenix-wiki 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to open *another* sockpuppet case for what is an obvious sock just like the ones blocked at that case? The behaviour of this account is totally online with Pinoybandwagon's socks, up to the recreation of the same hoax article that got recreated several times with the exact same text by several different socks already blocked, addition to the same templates, re-naming of the same articles to the same names, exact same wording of some comments, exact same lenghty additions to the same articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I requested block on WP:AIV and got declined for his edits not being actual vandalism (notice I had got confused with another user, hence the re-block request instead of simple block) [5] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user already has *two* resolved sock cases against him here and here and has even edited the first archived case to blame his blocked User:Map_inc account for some of the socks and salvage some of his accounts --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking at probable sockpuppets and there's any dispute on it, best to just create a new case at the top of the old RFCU. Some RFCU's I've seen have 11 or 12 instances over a period of time within the same report. Unless it's a clear WP:DUCK case and you can prove it, it's safest just to add it. On looking at the guy's edits, though, I must admit he has a good point re the naming, it wouldn't be a violation if Philippine stations are generally known by name as they are here in Australia. Orderinchaos 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:DUCK case, with his user page being identical to other socks and identical edits. I will prove it tomorrow here with damning evidence, I can't do it today --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget his characteristic addiction to the use of ALL CAPS to ORDER other editors to LEAVE HIS EDITS ALONE and NEVER CHANGE THEM BACK! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for this user being a Pinoybandwagon's sock:

• user page almost identical to blocked socks, and follows the same layout patterns, compare User:martindanza with 3 differents sock's user pages before being indef blocked [6], [7] and [8]
• same answer to block warnings on talk pages, with emphasis on same words and CAPS use, compare his anwer "There is NO NEED to block me."[9] with blocked user anwer "THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK ME."[10]
• Tries to move DYCL-FM to 96.3_WRock three times [11] [12] [13]. Pinoy also tried the same move [14] and so did Bf2 (a Pinoy's sock) [15]
• edits a template edited by Pinoy's socks and Map inc's socks template history, and make the same noming changes. Compare his name changes at [16] [17].
• same pattern of not following WP:Naming conventions#Broadcasting by not using the callsign as name of the article despite all stations having a callsign. See changes on templates here, here and here, all of them on templates where only socks of Pinoybandwagon have made that type of changes, like [18]. Creating AU_Radio_104.1 instead of DWAU, 107.1 Dwee FM instead of DWEE (I intend to move those articles later), as well as placing the frequency in front of the name. Also moving from the callsign name to that sort of names [19][20][21]. There are dozens of examples of this on the sock contributions, I'll pick some of the most recent ones: creating 98.3_One_FM instead of DZLT, moving from DWKX to 103.5_Max_FM [22].
• Making the same redirect as blocked socks, from 99.5 Campus FM to DWRT-FM here and here again. Admins can look at the deleted pages on 99.5 Campus FM and see the blocked socks trying to create the same page there.
• Recreation of deleted hoax article 99.9 Hot FM (admins can look at the deleted pages and see how it was re-created by at least one blocked sock with the exact same wording on the page creation). See the link reinclusion on a template by martindanza [23].
• similar contribution patterns to socks, like editing always on philippine radio stations and even on the same articles, and not editing on any other topic ever. Also, as explained above, re-creating the same redirects, performing the same page moves, creating article with the same non-compliant names, restoring the same deleted article,

Editor testimonial: I'm sure that User:Orangemike and User:Danngarcia will be happy to confirm that there are lots of evidence pointing unambiguously that he is a Pinoybandwagon's sock --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

need an admin to look at the evidence for the sock status, and make the block if he is convinced. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still need an admin to look at martindanza and block him as a sock of Pinoybandwagon (see evidence above). Today he has started editing again, keeping the same behaviour as the blocked socks, moving articles to the name he prefers against Wikipedia:Naming conventions [24] [25], and creating unsourced articles about closed stations instead of simply listing the old names under the current name [26], thus causing the philippine radio stations templates to be overloaded with articles about non-notable articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still need an admin here --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many many IPs adding "я вам пишу, чего же боле" to various articles (reversions:[27],[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. And those are just a few of my reversions. User:Thingg and Cluebot get a lot as well.) "я вам пишу, чего же боле" is Russian. It means (per google translator) "I am writing to you, what pain". It appears that the vandal is using a proxy server, and he is mainly targeting random pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and articles related to visas and passports in the article space. What I am asking is, may users file reports to AIV with the first vandalism, and can admins block the vandals for a week the first time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been blocking those accounts like mad today. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's slowed down now, maybe he ran out of IPs finally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reporting the spambots on m:User:Drini/daylog for blocking on other wikis as well. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IPs that change that much will continue to do so, especially if the editor is using a service such as AOL. I have a feeling that it will continue despite the blocks. Not to get ahead of ourselves, or myself, but could a range block be entertained at one point? Also, Z, the editing didn't seem to be done in rapid fire succession, how can you be sure it was a spambot? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted based on article title, nonsense in edit summaries, and adding random nonsense in Russian. Very likely that it is coordinated to some degree and not just random vandalism. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One correction: not "what pain", but "what else". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean? (I see it does appear on Google in its Latinised form, and has several thousand hits in Cyrillic.) Orderinchaos 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google's automatic translator, and came up with "I am writing to you, what pain?" MasSem (who I assume actually knows some Russian, unlike me) said above that it means "I am writing to you, what else?". Either way, I know one word in Russian, and I do not know how to write that one word in its Latinised form, let alone in Cyrillic. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opening of Tatyana's letter to Evgeny Onegin; in the Johnston translation, "I write to you -- no more (confession is needed)". I don't know why it is being spammed, though. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record 'bolye' is not 'pain/ache' (cf.'bolyet') but more. 'what more (would one require/need = what else could you want)'. Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WP:AIV someone recently reported this:

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to reports it (sorry, I'm new to this how editting wiki thing), but a webforum I use has launched a series of vandalism against a selection of articles in an attampt to play a game. Details here: http://www.altnation.com/forums/junk-talk/134411-wikipedia-jenga.html

Might be worth watching. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing the forum pages, I notice that the vandalism has been quickly reverted and has resulted in some blocks. I suspect that the handful of vandalism edits the forum will generate will not survive recent changes patrol for long. Keep up the good work, gang! —Travis^talk 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd the articles being used as the latest post is telling users how to evade their IP blocks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch out for them changing articles about or relating to Neil Gaimen. There is a meme about him on said forum --86.163.79.85 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Said article is now semi'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted at Neil Gaiman. Can I suggest a permanent block for Bikuki (talk · contribs) for being a vandalism only account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite comical actually. Where else can you get a running commentary on what they're going to do next? Look out for the next instalment: creating the Alternative Nation article (currently a redirect) -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd all the targeted articles (including the Alternative Nation redirect). I'm just about ready to register an account and explain my case over there. I'm going to deal with Bikuki in a moment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Bikuki the Ace of Spades. Iff (s)he wants to contribute freely instead of participating in such a retarded "game" I'd be more than happy to take it back. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bikukis ace of spades - 'if she wants to I'll take it back' - I can't bloody well explain myself! There are no email addresses, no forum, no way of editting the pages myself... It looks a bit like censure guys. - endless psych (talk)

Also I've altered the title because its not as if the whole of alt nation is planning to vandalise wikipedia. endles psych (talk)

The pages were semi-protected because of this. With the exception of the Alternative Nation redirect (which I will unprotect now), the semi-protection will expire in a few more days. Please note that, if your account is at least four days old, you can edit semiprotected pages. Further, if you are Bikuki, you can still edit your talk page as Bikuki in order to make an unblock request with {{unblock}}. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From AltNation - This is meant to be a bit of playful fun, not malicious, furrowed-browed vandalism. I can assure you that no bad feeling or malice towards wikipedia was or is intended. I think this has been taken a bit too seriously to be honest. - lesmts

Why don't you continue playing with each other and leave Wikipedia out of it? ... discospinster _talk 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les, it isn't a bit of fun and you know it. For the record, the forum user who reported this wasn't me, I do use that forum and have reverted many similar edits by AltNation vandals, many of whom have also targetted my user page and ridiculed me in public for taking Wikipedia seriously. It's ridiculous, so just stop it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (AKA Addy from AltNation, yes I'll admit that)[reply]

I would also like to apologise for the vandalism on behalf of Alternative Nation itself; while a minority of users there have decided to have fun at Wikipedia's expense, I hope that it is recognised that these activities are in no way sanctioned by the website or the infinite majority of its users, and that said majority greatly respects Wikipedia and everything related to it. I have no interest in sticking up for my friends there who have committed acts of vandalism here, especially since I've become the scapegoat there for the - entirely appropriate and reasoned - response of the admins here, but at the same time I would hope that the name of AltNation itself not be sullied by the actions of the inconsiderate few recently. If I see anymore instances of vandalism by them, I'll be sure to revert and report accordingly.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should anyone who would use the phrase ″infinite majority" be editing an encyclopaedia?Potatojunkie (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "a bit of fun" is this: Sure, it's clever the first time. The problem is, the millionth person to do it still thinks they're being clever, when really it's gotten old. Every time someone watches a rerun of that episode of the Colbert Report, there's a chance they'll be inspired to change the "Elephant" article to say that the population has tripled. And every time, they'll think it's funny, and that they're the first ones to actually do it, etc. But in the end, it's just yet another lame vandalism. --Random832 (contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or that Librarians are hiding something. v^_^v -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Bikuki

I've gone over and presented my case over at the forum, and per discussion there, I have unblocked Bikuki, as (s)he has stated (s)he's not going to vandalize again. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this case now be marked as resolved? I think they've had their fun and with the existing set up of blocks I don't think anything further is going to be done (though I will certainly be watching the forum for further vandalism)Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think so (I feel it should be an admin that does it though). -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. So, on a Site which Shall Not be Named, two users who appear to be Wikipedia admins agreed that it was a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia, and that something should be done about that. Neither of them, however, was available to do anything about it. User:Jayneofthejungle registered to try to do something about it, and was rather firmly slapped down for it. Of course, she did also create an obvious nonsense page, but that's not related to the issue at hand, which is: should something be done about it? I present the question to the Council of Administrative Wisdom for judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jon Awbrey refrained for a reasonable amount of time from editing Wikipedia and/or setting up sockpuppet accounts? We could certainly extend the badly named "Right" to Vanish, but not unless he has shown he will never again edit the Wikipedia. This does not currently seem to be the case. --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of editors who use their own names and then get into trouble is complex. However it is the case that the current #1 google hit for Awbrey is an announcement that he is banned from editing wikipedia. I don't advocate deleting the page, but how does blanking it interfere with tracking and blocking his socks, assuming he is still trying to edit? Thatcher 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if we blank the page, how can we readily determine that the community ban is still in place? —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page history and the block log. I said blanked, not deleted. Thatcher 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why is it "a bad thing that this disruptive user's real name googles to his history of disruption on Wikipedia"? Should unrepentent vandals really expect that all record of their misbehaviour should disappear down the memory hole after a while? How "fair" is it that the 2nd-placed link on Google for Usama bin Laden is an FBI "most wanted" notice? This isn't a Daniel Brandt-style BLP situation; the prominence of Awbrey's ban is entirely a situation of his own making, resulting from his own actions. Also, I note that WP:RTV applies specifically to users "in good standing", which Awbrey plainly isn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not citing RTV, I'm saying that it is nice to be nice to people even if they aren't always nice to us. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bin Laden? Really? Come on. That kind of analogy is beyond tasteless and offensive, and not in any way okay. Please don't do it again. - Revolving Bugbear 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden's name is linked to bad things because he has done bad things in the real world. Awbrey's sin is that he dicks around with a website that he has a disagreement with. Hardly a fair comparison, and a sign that Wikipedians take themselves way too seriously. Thatcher 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, obviously, that misconduct brings notoriety; and the author of the misconduct has nobody to blame but themselves for that notoriety. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Awbrey has stated the he intends to continue to make socks here to cause trouble (of which he has already created a very generous number) ad nauseum. I fail to see why we should extend a page-blanking courtesy to him until he at the very least shows courtesy to us by making a committment to cease that disruption. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair request, I think, although I would be willing to blank the page first and see what happens. Thatcher 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under absolutely no circumstances is this user to be unblocked. Nor should his user page be cleared. He continues to use sockpuppets, creating much work for me (and other checkusers) in blocking his user accounts and ranges. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx2)Nobody was discussing an unblock, and what does the work involved in blocking have to do with his userpage? Is it just "don't screw with us", some sort of incentive, or what?

If he has a problem with the results on his name, he can write OTRS himself, I think, and then we can have this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that we have to have somebody write an email, which may or may not be answered or actioned, in order to do the ethical thing. Blanking the page does not in the least interfere with the work of our checkusers; I am certain every last one of them is well aware of who Jon Awbrey is and what his patterns are. Nobody is suggesting he be unblocked, simply that the #1 Google-hit on his name not be a ban notice from Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have toddled over to the Board of Outer Darkness Where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth myself, and checked whether Awbrey has asked for it himself. He hasn't, not even there, which is why I make the statemen above. (At least I think not, his posts are relatively incomprehensible). I do think that he should at the very least make that much effort. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I won't abbreviate that for fear of creating a post that vaguely resembles what he writes. It doesn't change my position. It's either the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, regardless of who asks for it (and I would think that Newyorkbrad asking for it should count for something) or the way that it is requested. Since so far the main argument is "he deserves it", I think we can do better than that. Risker (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that at all. Sometimes the right thing to do is conditional on the expressed preference of the person it most affects. In this case, if he doesn't give a damn, I don't think that it should be necessary to make an exception. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question of renaming Awbery came up awhile ago, before I knew of his involvement "there". My position was that it would be a humanitarian gesture to rename such accounts. However, I later discovered on "that" site, that he only wished to be renamed if we renamed several other accounts, some of which have nothing to do with living people's names. So since he is opposed to the rename, and clearing his page would make the ban less obvious to uninvolved admins or non-admins working at SSP/AIV, I think we should just leave this the way it is. In the past, I have worked with users who are banned and who have link-able names to communicate with the crats and invoke their RTV via rename, and it seems to have worked well. But if the subject is still abusing the 'pedia, I don't see why we should help them hide that abuse. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, MBisanz. It still comes back to one point: it is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do for another banned user, it is the right thing for JA, regardless of from whom the request originates. How many people at SSP don't know who he is? And how will having a "banned user" banner change that? He is still on our list of banned users, is he not? Risker (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah jeez. Didn't see this here. I went ahead and blanked the user pages because I think they're a BLP problem. It doesn't really matter what he wants done with this or any other account; they can remain where they are, and they must remain blocked. We can simply move the category to a name that has less impact on the google results of a living person. "Do no harm" and all. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and undid your unilateral decision to ignore our guidelines for dealing with sockpuppeteers - we tag their userpages, and collect lists of their sockpupppet accounts and IPs, to assist in future damage control. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note - BLP is an article space policy, not a user space policy. If a user wants to register under his real name and act like a dick, he has no reasonable expectation that we will treat him any differently than we treat any other misbehaving account. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet guideline that you referred to, Raul, would it be this one: "Sockpuppeteer - The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely." (from WP:SOCK) I note the use of the word "may" instead of "must". I also note that the tag has not been removed, only the page blanked. As to acting like a dick, well, we are back to the "he deserves it" argument. Is that the way we want to operate here? Risker (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, BLP applies in all namespaces. It's been that way for years.

As for the account, that's not the issue. They should all remain blocked. But there's no need for them to have content. They're blocked and full protected—and they should stay that way. If you're really concerned that the check users will forget that the account is blocked and forget how to use the history tab, we could at least move the account elsewhere. See Risker. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the username policy from December 2005, when Awbrey registered, says nothing about, "If you register your real name and then screw with us, it will follow you on google forever." People who do bad things in the real world find their name attached to those bad things, and justifiably so. This is just a website with aspirations of grandeur. Thatcher 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Raul and KC here. There is no BLP issue here, "Jon Awbrey is banned from editing Wikipedia" is a simple, accurate, and trivially easy to verify statement. I was afraid of this with BLP, but we were all assured "This will never happen." Well, folks, it's happening. BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing. Awbrey was well aware of the consequences of his actions (such as, well, an editing ban) when he chose to take them. If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place, and then, and only then, ask for some consideration in return, such as removal of the ban notice. Notices that a user is banned is important for tracking purposes, and if Awbrey chose to create an account under his name, and then chose to take actions which he knew would be in public view forever, and still chooses to continue those actions to this day, he cannot then choose whether or not that page has a ban notice, because we need that notice to prevent the very harm he chooses to continue to cause. If he wants to show us good faith first, by leaving us alone and respecting the fact that he is not welcome here, then perhaps after he has done so for some period of time we can reciprocate that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we can't blank or change the message on his page. The whole spirit behind BLP is doing no harm on marginally notable people. Why would we relax that spirit for people who are not notible at all? Seems backward...you don't have to be the subject of an article to be harmed by Wikipedia you know. This feels like we're insisting on punishing someone...RxS (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP covers false, misleading, or unverifiable information, not true and verifiable information which may be negative or embarrassing." WP:UNDUE. --Random832 (contribs) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I think differently because of the Daniel Brandt redirect DRV (which is, incidentally, blanked as a courtesy). The Brandt redirect had very slight encyclopedic value, but helped dominate google results for "Daniel Brandt." We deleted the redirect almost solely because of its impact on google, and it really didn't matter how despicable Brandt might be considered. This is an analogous situation; a hated commentator with a barely-useful user page, which is #1 on google. I really doubt that check users will forget about this user, and many of these comments suggest that we think the notices are some sort of punishment ("If he's really that bothered by the ban notice, I suggest he first stop the behavior which led to the ban in the first place"). That's perverse, and wholly out of line with BLP.

I'm not going to edit war on the point though; really, the site should just edit robots.txt so that user pages are not indexed. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that his page should be blanked. Not so much BLP as a basic issue of ethics. No one has actually provided a reason for keeping the notice on his page yet. -- Naerii 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has yet given a substantive reason for giving special treatment to a persistent, unrepentant vandal. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shouldn't _be_ "special treatment" - we should treat _everyone_ the way we're proposing. "We don't treat everyone this way, so why should we treat anyone this way" is not a sensible response to a proposal to give everyone some benefit. --Random832 (contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose if we're going to be nothing but policy wonks then Wikipedia policy would be more important than preventing doing RL harm to someone. But surely the spirit of BLP is more important than whatever text happens to be there at the moment. Real life punishment is not part of our banning policy...RxS (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is part of real life, and the person editing on Wikipedia is living in the real world. If a real person edits under their real name and screws up and there are consequences to it, how is it that we are doing that person harm in the "real world" by having a record of those actions? They brought the harm on themselves, we are only recording it. There's no conceivable "ethical" reason to remove that record. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is because I am the first contributor to this discussion who uses his full name as user name, but it's completely incomprehensible for me why this even needs discussing. Is it really necessary to put it the other way round to get consensus for a tiny gesture of generosity? So be it then: wikiversity:WV:SHRINE. I think that speaks for itself, although it refers to vandals, not trolls. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. KC told me when I blanked the page that user "considers it a 'badge of pride' to have been banned." In my opinion, that makes the case for blanking even stronger, not weaker. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the templates off and left the link to the blocking discussion, maybe that's an acceptable compromise. I don't understand how potentially harming someone in real life is part of our blocking/banning policy. Please don't revert unless you have a real answer to that question...RxS (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about don't continue to edit war on protected pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One compromise attempt is not edit warring...WTF, unbelievable. You're the one who reverted a protected page....is it less "protected" when you edit? Unbelievable...RxS (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still protected. As I stated, I returned the protected page to the status it was when it was protected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer if he unprotected it, reverted, and then protected it? Seems senselessly formal. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual process is you figure out what to do with it while it is protected, and then go on from there. I haven't seen that issue come up here as being "We're gonna do this" and everyone agreeing with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "usual process" is that the protecting admin does not revert before protecting the page. But that's unfair. The "usual process" simply has no meaning for editing a banned user page. Do you have an actual reason for reverting? Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect his page to one his socks and add the ban banner there ? Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I actually WP:DGAF what Jon Awbrey or just about anyone else on WR wants done here, with a few exceptions, like for instance Newyorkbrad, ( a sitting arbitrator, remember? ) who asked that this be corrected, and Alison (a CU and Oversighter, remember? ) who said it would be. WP:DENY has been used many many times to deny recognition to sockpuppeteers who seem to want it, and Jon Awbrey seems proud of being badged this way. So let's deny it to him. Also, I don't see how having this page blanked (not deleted, just blanked) is going to impede operations of CUs ( I'm a CU here and elsewhere, remember? ) in the slightest. BLP applies throughout the entire project, not just in articlespace. This page needs to be blanked. If it requires first getting consensus to unprotect, to satisfy the policy wonks standing on "it's protected, you can't change it", then so be it. But blank the damn thing and move on. Stop with the revenge bit and the "you were a dick so tough noogies" bit... that's so middleschool it's not funny. We should follow the principle of doing what is right, what is good and proper, even for people who are big weenies, as I have said before. I leave it as an academic exercise who is the bigger weenie... ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A forceful statement, but, frankly, I don't understand why that is the "right" thing to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People need to just tell these chumps to buzz off. Really, OTRS needs to just be a recording that says "go away" or "fix your entry if you don't like it." I think it is totally ridiculous just how much the 'pedia has gotten into busybody meta about how things affect real world people. How can we be NPOV if we are trying to make everyone happy? It's impossible and a recipe for certain disaster. It shouldn't be our job or our goal to be protectors of the world. This is getting to the point of being disruptive with nonsense like the suggestion of mass deleting our biographies of living people because we don't have enough eyes to cover them all. Again, it isn't our job to make people feel good. It isn't that hard, you know. At some point, the foot needs to be put down about these grievers who go whining to board every time something they don't like shows up here. Sorry, but enough is enough. Much too much navel gazing and unneeded bureaucracy is being put in place to deal with problems that don't exist. In fact, we have all sorts of absurd policy proposals coming from the BLP extremists. In this case, we have a request made by someone who continues to be a malicious sock puppeteer, as Raul has pointed out. WHY THE F**K ARE WE GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?! This is a no-brainer, people. Tell the bozo to shove off and accept responsibility for his actions. You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not such a no-brainer. One the one hand, we have 'He made his bed, he lays in it', which some will interpret as either cold and hard, or vindictive and malicious. On the other, we have 'Let's do what's right, even if he doesn't want it', which can look Big Brotherish, or 'the state knows what's best for you', a heavy handed authoritarian reaction. Neither makes us look good, and both are guaranteed to get us criticized at WR and other sites. Neither has the 'right' outcome for us, and neither will get him to stop attacking WP and its' editors. Short of unblocking him and letting him run amuck here, nothing we can do, be it action or inaction, gets WP any positive ground, and everything gets us negative ground. The best we can hope is that by following our policies, we can look consistent. However, we don't have good policy and precedent for this, so we really need to work it out now, before we have to double back on ourselves (Again, given that one admin tried already to change the status quo), and look like bigger fools. We need sokme seriously well thought out logical arguments on both sides of this before we do anything. This situation has existed for months, and JA doesn't really seem to find anything urgent in us resolving this. (That alone ought to be our best guide in this matter, that he doesn't care that it's the top google hit) Let's take the time to really build community consensus for a guideline or policy, instead of just rushign to mark this as resolved. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dragon695, I certainly feel all foolish now. I missed the part about this being a war, I thought it was a peaceful project, one with high standards where doing the right thing mattered more than getting revenge, one where we were trying to build an encyclopedia. "GIVING HIM ANY QUARTER!?!" you say? Why stop at keeping his user page (the number one return) all vindictive and stuff.. heck, let us write a bio on him that points out what a weenie he is... that way we all can feel better about ourselves. Would that be better? Don't forget to kick Newyorkbrad while he's down, ok, for being foolish enough to make an honest and sincere request that the right thing be done? That isn't the project I signed up for. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe you are, and this actually IS more like the project I think it is (and want it to be) than a schoolyard pissing contest. Get a grip man, you are racing to the bottom and fast. Maybe this matter needs to go to ArbCom now so they can remind us again that BLP applies everywhere and trumps lesser policies. I'm not saying there aren't nuances to this matter, that some thought isn't required, but a clear cut "F**K OFF" probably isn't the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I shouldn't have edited the page per my earlier statements, but does this appear to be a good midpoint?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I arrived late to this debacle - I was off teh intarwebz. I've modified Ryulong's edit to remove the 'banned' tags. Folks - this is someone's RL name here we're bandying around. It doesn't matter whether they're banned or not; it's just not right. I see a lot of the comments above and all I can get from them is vengeance and punishment. This is not what we're about here and the sole purpose for tagging a userpage like that is for tracking banned editors. No more. It's not a brand of shame. Frankly, just about every admin know's Mr. Awbrey's modus operandi at this stage, and every checkuser his account signature, so that whole issue is moot anyway. I've recently had my own RL name bandied about by Mr. Brandt and I didn't appreciate it either, especially given the ensuing issues it brought. This is more of the same. Let's move on and leave the man's name out of it. This isn't an appeal to BLP (because it's not a BLP issue), nor is it an appeal to whatever policy documents which could be pointed to (there are a number); I'm simply asking us to do what's right here. JA came to the site here in good faith, from what I can determine and contributed a vast amount of good work. It's all in the contrib history. What's happening now just smacks of punishment and that's not what we're about. Of all people, I have a huge amount of respect for NewYorkBrad and, once again, he's right on this one - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few thoughts on this myself: personally, I do think that Jon made his own bed on this, but yes, the "banned" notice is a bit strong. I think the current solution works as well. As for the sockpuppet category... is there any use for these categories? Abusive account is abusive account, whether it's banned or not. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no use for them. Are we keeping count on the socks? Why? I've deleted enough of those categories in the past per WP:DENY anyway and these ones serve no purpose. Some people even use them for bragging - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete all the pages. The accounts remain blocked, it remains noted in the block log. I see the question being asked "why should we blank the page a banned user?" I would ask, "why shouldn't we?" It doesn't help us to have Jon Awbrey's #1 hit on Google to be "this user is banned on Wikipedia". Nor does it particularly harm us. Given that, the presumption should be towards getting rid of such stuff. Neıl ☎ 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete it. If we have a choice between doing harm to a real person, and doing no harm, and neither choice actually benefits us much...let's go with the do no harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will repeat my earlier suggestion: that we rename the master account to something innocuous and then carry on as usual. I would hope that removing the Google bomb would de-escalate the situation anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure forcibly renaming a user's account (yes, even a banned user) without their assent - effectively disappearing their attribution - would violate GFDL in some way or other. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't vanish their attribution, it merely changes the name. I was happy to reassign the socks to a different category (dummy account) but people thought it was a bit much keeping some stuff attributed to a named individual, while listing all the problems they caused somewhere else. I would, in a heartbeat, run AWB and rename every instance of Jon Awbrey outside article and talk, to something else, but I don't think it would go down well. I remain convinced that seeing his name immortalised as a vandal is provocative for Jon, who is I think inclined to be somewhat obsessive anyway. He said, as I recall, that he'd be OK with this along as the same remedy was available to anyone else, as of course it should be. I don't see him emailing OTRS to request it, though, due to all the bad blood. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support such a complete renaming. This isn't in mainspace so it doesn't damage the project at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why we need to be extending favors to one of the worst trolls in Wikipedia history. Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Worst by whose measure? Brandt drove off Katefan0 and Newyorkbrad (the latter at least temporarily). He's splattered the names, birthdays, and pictures of users who contribute pseudonymously on Wikipedia. Both his user and user talk pages have been deleted and salted. Awbrey...well, I don't believe ther's an LTA on him, but as far as I understand he just tries to keep reverting to his preferred version on the Peirce article. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having the socks in a category that collects them together as being related is useful, I think. The category doesn't necesarily have to exist, it can be a redlink, going to the page shows you the socks anyway. It also doesn't have to have his name on it. I think a redlinked category won't show up in searches but I could be wrong. So I'd hate to see the socks decategorised. Changed to a different category, sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference is made to the "Race and intelligence" Talk page: Talk:Race and intelligence. I have mentioned unhelpful and persistent edits by User:Slrubenstein like those shown below to administrator Moonriddengirl:

"Also, please note these more recent edits by user Slrubenstein that seem aimed at preventing an amicable resolution over the sentence discussed above. He seems to be encouraging his buddies not to participate in the discussion or am I supposed to assume that these edits were well intentioned?[34][35] --Jagz (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely not assuming good faith with those. I will address it with him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Moonriddengirl asked him to refrain from making edits like that but he has continued anyway: [36] He is not participating in those discussions on the Talk page and seems to be encouraging others not to participate as well. Is there a way to get this to cease? --Jagz (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And again here: [37] --Jagz (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC) and here: [38][reply]

This seems to violate WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And here: [39] --Jagz (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagz, I fail to see where you asking the help of an admin is alright, but where Slrubenstein asking for another admin to comment is wrong. That smacks of double standards to me.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ec) WP:AN/I is not a scrapbook. Jagz seems completely incapable of backing up his flimsy assertions with convincing diffs. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion [40] identified the problem editor on R&I. It was not Slrubenstein. 131.111.24.97 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that so far, it is User:Jagz who has exhausted the community's supply of good faith on the R&I article, by repeated edit-warring, unhelpful comments on the talk page, and repeatedly bringing the same complaint to different forums in hopes of a different resolution. I'm wondering if a topic ban might not be appropriate at this point? If anyone wants diffs to support these, I'll supply them, but the Race and Intelligence article and associated talk page are a good place to start, in addition to the revision history of Jagz' talk page.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [41]

I take it that you are LGBT?

is quite uncalled for. Editors are often blocked for such personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only one example of Jagz' wit. This edit is no more brilliant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagz has already been warned twice at the beginning of this month for disruptive comments on Slrubenstein's talkspace[42][43]. It is clear that he has chosen to ignore proper warning and continue to behave disruptively--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This diff [44] shows how Jagz edits when unobserved. Here he removes cited criticisms of the WP:FRINGE scholar Philippe Rushton. On Race and intelligence he cannot make edits like this, because the article is under constant surveillance, but his ultimate goal seems similar and involves the same scholar. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask again: where do we go from here? It seems quite clear he has exhauste the community's patience and capacity to assume good faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're supposed to treat all editors as equals, like we're some perfect utopia. But the fact of the matter is slrubenstein is a long-time editor with work across a wide range of articles, someone who is well aware of a vast majority of the ideals that make an article great. Jagz is essentially a WP:SPA, and whose edits can charitably be called biased. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that Jagz has been consitently working against consensus, while Slrubenstein has been working towards building consensus. Also, in a recent request for mediation (see link above), Jagz is the only one who turned down the mediation. I do agree with Slrubenstein that I fail to see what Jagz is attempting to do, except behaving like a POV-pushing troll.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was one of the parties involved. Without Jagz, it was turned down. Jagz should be receive a community ban, or at least a long-term block. He is a troll.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might it not be appropriate now to run an RfC on User:Jagz's conduct, prior to a possible community topic ban? Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jsn9333 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA previously blocked for WP:SOCK violations, this guy has gotten into it with a slew of respected editors as well as admins. Many editors (and admins) have pointed out that incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive behavior will get him blocked, yet he moves ahead full tilt & boogie. I don't have time to dig up all the diffs, but I'm sure pulling a few random diffs from his contribution history over the last few weeks should provide more than enough evidence of trolling and persistent harassment. Don't be tempted to write this off as a content dispute, for it surely is not. I'll leave a notice on some other editors' and admins' talkpages to comment here as well. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently I am ignoring all posts by Jsn, so I don't really have much to add to what Blaxthos has previously written. My only interaction with the user was him leaving an innaccurate post on my talk page requesting my comment since there was a new consensus regarding the lede at the Fox News article. When I got to the article talk page it was quickly apparent that the post on my talk page was a lie. After I made an edit in error, I was accused of favoritism, and bias. Even after I explained the error, and apologized for it, he still kept harping on it and saying that I did not show good faith towards him. At that point, I realized this user was simply an agitator single purpose account and very like a troll. So after one day of interaction, I have ignored all his further posts. Although there is a content dispute aspect to the discussion, the behavior of certain editors there has made movement towards consensus almost impossible. I am not sure if ANI can help the situation but if it can, please do so. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope other administrators choose to look into this matter. Jsn is a single-issue editor determined to be combative with everyone in sight. This is an article that is obviously controversial but the editors there have largely managed to work harmoniously until the arrival of Jsn. I have no problem with him being a strong advocate, but he should be asked to work on his interactions with other users. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Late to the party, but like Ramsquire, I began ignoring any posts made by Jsn several days ago. Almost every post he makes is an attempt to discredit other editors (specifically blaxthos) and their motives. He/she is a disruptive SPA and hasn't taken well to nudges in the right direction. He's quite the disruptive force in a discussion that, while heated, has always been quite civil. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Account summary by R. Baley (unsolicited and uninvolved)
• Jsn9333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

account created: 14 March 2008

Interiot's tool (wannabeKate) results link.

• At FoxNews talk page (SPA?):

312 edits (out of 441 edits total, run at Mon Apr 21 17:03:13 2008 GMT)

Diff showing that the editor knows good deal about wikipedia at 15 days (however, this could have an innocent explanation), to quote from the previous diff, "If discussion with the other party seeking to bias the entry does not solve the problem then we'll have to turn to another request for comment or a survey (most likely even arbitration since supposedly a consensus was already built. . ."

Virtually all 441 edits concern Fox News or Jeremiah Wright, however, the editor states in an unblock request, "I'm not a conservative; I'm not a liberal. I'm someone who spots bias when I see it. . ."

• Other relevant information:

Jsn9333's Block log "19:23, 5 April 2008 Gb (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jsn9333 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ? (Abusing multiple accounts) (Unblock)"

SSP case, related RFCU

Talk page revision showing discussion related to the block before it was removed.

Oblique ref to wp:bite:

"I'm fairly new here.

". . .but rather am seeking to understand this process better."

Other:

FNC indefinitely protected

Conclusions: My check leads me to believe this might be a reincarnated account, whose user has probably run into trouble before through POV-pushing, but has learned enough to at least push the boundaries of our policies this time around. Also the last edit seems to be on April 17 (correction: edits are continuing. 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)) Since I can't be around much right now (for following-up) -I would like input from others. But I think this is worth keeping an eye on at the very least. BTW, has anyone notified the editor of this discussion? R. Baley (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that this isn't his first rodeo. No, I did not post a notice of this discussion on Jsn9333's talk page. At the time I was running out the door (hence no diffs), and at this point I'm hesitant because I know the megabytes of trolling that will surely follow. Many thanks to R. Baley for doing some of the legwork here. I would note that his actions continue daily and didn't end on the 17th. Any suggestions or oversight is welcome and appreciated. Thanks again. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification complete. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jsn9333's response

Please, admins, look at what users have said about Blaxthos civility on the same page. The discussion is hot and heavy at the Fox News talk page, and a lot of users have sometimes accused others of civility problems, Blazthos included:

• ... you are attempting to end the discussion... and you continue to do so by insulting me by accusing me of some sort of plot. Bytebear (directed to Blaxthos)
• Blaxthos, you should be ashamed of yourself... this was a simple of issue of if it should be mentioned, yet you turned it into a huge bash against me. Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)
• Hey Blaxthos. I normally try to stay civil, but may I direct your attention to WP:DICK? Once your done reading that, try to realize that if there's one thing that can be clearly established at this point, it's that there is no consensus on this matter. There may have been once, there is none now. TheNobleSith (directed to Blaxthos after Blaxthos was very uncivil to me because I edited the Fox News article he has assumed ownership of)
• Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. Arnabdas (directed to Blaxthos on his talk page)
• ...instead of responding civily to my comments, Blaxthos show just what kind of person he is by making a huge rant against me. Just what the heck is your problem? Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)

There are more references, and a lot more if you'll look at other pages Blaxthos has been involved in. I'm not going to waste my time posting them all here, as that is exactly what Blaxthos is attempting to do here... waste time. Plus, practically every user has had such accusations tossed at them by each other on the FNC page because it is such a divisive topic. If you'll take time to look at the FNC entry, you'll see generally users who want the entry kept unchanged and those who do not have, at times, accused each other of "incivility".

Please hear me out. I am not a "reincarnated account." It is impossible for there to be any evidence of that, because I know it isn't true. I started editing wikipedia when I created this account. I think that is very obvious if one looks at my history in the Fox News entry... I didn't even know how to start a Request for Comments and the admin had to help me. If I have caught on quick it is because I jumped in head first and have spent a ton of time here in the last couple of weeks (my studies suffering for it!). Plus I have a lot of experience in discussion forums, just not WP. The majority of the admins involved in my "sockketpuppetry" case said they believed it was actually a case of meatpuppetry, a violation that is very easy for a newbie to make. Essentially I talked to a friend of mine at school about the debate Fox News entry, and he created an account to get involved. I was not aware that was a violation, was told to stop, and I have. I also had a warning for edit warring, because, as a new user, I did not know to mark an edit as minor during editing in the process of trying to form a consensus. Other users at FNC have engaged in as many consecutive edits as I have while discussing throughout a day, if not more, and that is the reason we are trying to reach consensus on that page.

What Blaxthos is doing here is hypocritical, by definition, as he has had as many "uncivil" accusations lashed at him as I have at me. A look at the pages he has been involved in shows that his account is where the true POV pushing occurs. Have a look at "Fox News Controversies" where he did the "NPOV" work and you'll see what I mean. While supposedly trying to work towards WP:NPOV Blaxthos has lashed out at other users with comments like, "you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!" I am attempting to actually balance POV's on pages he "owns", and he would love to get rid of me for it. However, I am not a single purpose account. I have edited other pages besides Fox News pages. I have not been around muchyet, and Fox News has taken a ton of time, so therefore Fox News edits have so far dominated my history. But I can assure you once consensus is reached there, which you'll see in the discussion for the last week I have been diligently working toward and involved in, then I will move on. The topic is divisive, Blaxthos does not like my position, he doesn't like the fact that an RfC I began ended up getting the wording he has guarded and "owned" for so long changed, and now he is trying to get you to get rid of me. Don't be deceived, Blaxthos is here to waste your time and mine. I hope you will put an end to this as quickly as Blaxthos has started it.

Again, if you have any evidence at all that I am a re-incarnated account, please let me see it because I know for a fact I am not. What Blaxthos is doing here is deceptive, hypocritical, and is truly a shame. He is not only one who bites newcomers (you can easily find where Bytebear said to him, on the FNC entry page, "you bite the newbee" while asking him to stop), he is attempting to eat this one alive. Please don't allow him to use you to do it. Jsn9333 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy fulfilled. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems accusing users of "POV pushing" is something you have a habit of doing. As Arnabdas says on your talk page, "Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people." I reiterate what he says... why can't you just move on? Jsn9333 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, Jsn9333; give me a break. Blaxthos move on? Every single post you make has some dig at blaxthos. You constantly direct everything at him, repeat things he says, quote him, and do everything but pretend to be him. If anybody needs to "move on" I'd say it's you. Your obsession with Blaxthos is freaky. Stop trying to discredit those who disagree with you, don't make personal attacks, and discuss content (not editors). - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos has repeatedly attacked me on the FNC talk page an other users have noted it, as referenced above. How is my responding to attacks a "freaky obsession", but him taking it to the even more extreme point of trying to get me kicked out of wikipedia with this hypocritical complaint not? I guess you apply one standard to him, but a different to me. Plus I haven't even been attacking him. I have asked him to examine if his own very strong POV about Fox, made clear in comments like the one I quote above, might be influencing his editing. He, in return, has called me a "POV pusher". Yet again, you say I "attack" and don't mention anything about him. You obviously seem to be giving him some preferential treatment. Perhaps your being one of the only administrator's hanging around the Fox News entry has something to do with how screwed up that page is right now. Maybe if you actually acted as a neutral administrator things would settle down over there. Jsn9333 (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being, you've violated more policies than I can remember, and instead of focusing on the article content, you focus on the motives of the editors. Your behavior has caused several editors to completely ignore your comments. Does that not indicate to you that something is wrong with your approach? Me being an admin has nothing to do with the situation, as I haven't protected the page, blocked any editors, or deleted any content. I have not performed any admin tasks related to that article. It's not my job as an administrator to play referee in content disputes or remain neutral in those disputes; I still get to have an opinion. - auburnpilot talk 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos has called me a "POV pusher", and I'm the one you say focuses on motives. I have had more posts related to content on the talk page then probably any other editor in the last couple of weeks. I have been working hard to try to get a consensus version going. Yet you ignore all of that. Instead, since I have asked Blaxthos to consider whether or not his strongly expressed POV regarding Fox may be effecting his editing (after he accused me of being a POV pusher), you accuse me of "focusing on motives instead of content." One of the only differences between Blaxthos and I is that you seem to agree with his POV on the entry, and you seem to disagree with mine. I'm just saying it like it is.

If I have "attacked" Blaxthos, he sure as hell has attacked me also... but you only reprimand me. And as shown above, if some have had misunderstandings with me concerning civility, then others have had such misunderstandings with Blaxthos. You have a double standard. Sure you haven't performed any admin related tasks... except now and again warning certain people (most often those whose POV Blaxthos disagrees with) about civility while ignoring the exact same behavior in others. Discuss content all you want, I'll support that all day long even if I disagree with you. But the fact is, your double standards with regards to policy pronouncements are obvious even in this discussion. You apply one standard to me, and no standard to Blaxthos. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here too. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? You have called me a single purpose, a POV pushing, disrespectful troll, and now are you act surprised and offended that I have responded by pointing out that while you try like hell to keep only critics of Fox news cited in the Fox News entry you also make comments like, "you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!". If you live in a glass house don't throw stones! Should I turn the other cheek? Perhaps, and so I toned that post down right after I posted it. However, it did not even need toning down considering what the point is: You are accusing me of being a "POV pusher" because I think both critics and proponents of Fox should be cited in the entry. Then you get mad when I suggest bias might be creeping into your editing because you want only critics cited and you yourself are a strong critic. Given the hypocritical nature of these allegations toward me and the fact that the accusations of "incivility" you cite toward me have been made just as frequently toward you and other editors at FNC... I would say that "incivility" is not actually what this noticeboard entry is about. What you are trying to do here is to eliminate a newcomer who has gone through the proper channels (by starting a Request For Comments at the Fox News entry you owned) to get a little WP:NPOV introduced through consensus building. You want me gone, and this is how you are trying to do it. Well guess what... consensus building is what wikipedia is about, and if you don't like the fact that I have built a consensus that opposed your "NPOV"... then perhaps you are exactly what you accuse me of being. Jsn9333 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this thread could be used as Exhibit A as the problem with Jsn. There's accusations of favoritism, digs at admins not doing their job, not acknowledging the problem with his approach, questioning motives, and the usual Blaxthos obsessing. It's all in here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And still more proof that he hasn't or refuses to get it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Blaxthos has left you a message asking you to come here and jump on the bandwagon. As proof that this criticism is about politics and not behavior, you won't see those who agreed with my ideas in the FNC entry here... only those who disagreed (like yourself, Ramsquire). Coincidence? Probably not. The "incivility" accusations against Blaxthos above speak for themselves. You ignore the fact that Blaxthos has insulted a great many editors at the FNC entry. You also ignore the fact that Blaxthos has called me (and other users in the entry at various times) a single purpose, a POV pushing, disrespectful troll. Yet you jump all over me for "digs". How do you explain that double standard? If promoting civility were really your goal in this, then I would think you would call it out wherever you see it?

This isn't the first time you have shown these colors of yours. When Blaxthos titled a section "Debunking jsn's claims" and I responded by titling a section "Debunking Blaxthos' allegations" you edited out his name from my title and told me I was being uncivil by referring to him in person! Yet you turn a blind eye to Blaxthos' original section! When I called you on your double standard and you apologized, I, in good faith, accepted your apology. Yet now you are doing the same thing here. You seem to be in the habit of applying double standards when it comes to Blaxthos. You act so offended and surprised that I have responded to Blaxthos' insults by simply asking him about his own bias, since has tried very hard to keep pro-Fox points of view out of the FNC entry while saying things like, "you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!". Should I turn the other cheek instead of point that out to him? Perhaps, and so I toned that post down right after I posted it. However, it did not even need toning down. If someone is going to accuse me of POV pushing, then I will help him look in the mirror.

You are shamelessly applying a double standard. That is sad. There is a proverb that says, "Like one who grabs a dog by the ears is a passerby who meddles in a quarrel not his own." You would do well to learn to heed it. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So.. by that proverb, we're done here, as anyone willing to review the material and intervene in any form would simply be abusing animals, metaphorically speaking? That speaks volumes, Jsn. It says that you won't recognize anyone who intervenes in any form as having the authority to do so. (I suspect, however, that you'll be much less vocal about that to those on 'your' side.). Hardly the civil sort of comment for a thread on AN/I about, among other things, your civility. ThuranX (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with intervention, as long as double standards are not applied. This thread is not about civility, otherwise there would not be these double standards. There is something else going on here. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JSN, maybe the world isn't really out to get you. Maybe the reason that every single respondant has said there are serious problems with both your logic and your disruptive behavior because we see you for the agitator your are. As multiple admins and well respected editors have pointed out, as soon as we started ignoring you things progressed along nicely (as they always had before your arrival). The only support you have is that of another single purpose account that only became active the exact same time you arrived (coincidence?). You've already been blocked for violating WP:SOCK, and now you show up here repeating the same nonsense over and over. Your obsession with me (and with attacking anyone who challenges you) is disturbing and dangerous. You have shown a complete unwillingness to reconsider your own behavior, including your repeated statements that you will violate WP:POINT and WP:3RR ad infinitum, and you've now made threatening statements to editors who have stood up to you. I don't know that I've ever seen as many respected editors and admins comment so forcefully regarding one troll's persistent disruption, and I hope that someone will end the disruption soon. Good day. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Every single editor" that I quoted above accused you of incivility and insults. But does that prove anything? The fact that you found two other people to apply your double standards does not mean much. The majority of the admins in my socketpuppetry case said they believed it was actually a case of meat puppetry. I'm not sure how they knew that, but I do know they were right, and I have since asked the friend and classmate I helped to get involved in the FNC entry to exit the debate.

I do not have an obsession with attacking you. I am prone to defending myself when you call me a single purpose, a POV pushing, disrespectful troll. Who says I am unwilling to reconsider my behavior? I am perfectly willing to apologize to you for any offense you may have taken by my asking you consider whether your bias plays a part in your editing... that is, if you are willing to apologize to me for the insults you have leveled against me. And I have never said I will violate any wikipedia policy. I did not know about many of them when I first came, and since I have been informed about them I have made efforts to follow the rules here. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't a case of you "asking" your puppet to "exit the debate" -- your puppet was indefinitely blocked. Regarding the rest of the lies you've made in the previous comment, I will spare you the embarrassment of posting diffs to discredit them, as doing so would most likely simply be feeding the troll. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my asking my friend to try not to post at the FNC debate any more, I suppose I'll add to your list of talents the amazing ability to know exact conversations I've had with private friends about wikipedia when we were miles from you and in private! LOL. The point is, the majority of the admins said the block was for meatpuppetry, it was an honest beginners mistake, and I spoke to my friend to make certain that it stopped. He actually wanted to get another account because he felt the rule was not fair, but I convinced him otherwise. And as far as saving me the "embarrassment of posting diffs", thanks but no thanks. Post away. In fact, I would prefer you to actually prove your point. You seem to have a habit of making wild assertions and then refusing to provide evidence. See here where you have refused to provide evidence to back up your claim that a very prestigious journal is in fact "obscure", that the POV opposite your own POV about Fox News is "fringe", and that you have "dozens" of studies that discredit the reliable, published, peer-reviewed UCLA-led study we discussed at the FNC entry. By all means, if you want to develop a habit of backing up your accusations with facts (and not double standards) I will encourage you in any way I can. Jsn9333 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I did issue a friendly warning to Blaxthos re: his comment to Bytebear on my talk page and told him on his talk page the problem I had with his section title (so that blows one of the conspiracy theories out of the water). Also, and less importantly, you butchered the saying, it's actually "A passerby who meddles in a quarrel that's not his is like one who grabs a dog by the ears." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, your friendly, private comment to Blaxthos was after you publicly lamblasted me for being uncivil. You and I had no previous difficulties at all until your accusation. You applied a double standard there, and when you apologized I accepted in good faith. Yet now you are doing the same thing again here. P.S. - The translation of the Proverb that I cited differs how in meaning from your translation? I don't really see the "butchering." Jsn9333 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, again Jsn is inaccurate and bordering on telling outright lies. I didn't publicly lambaste anyone [45] and has been explained ad nauseum, I never saw Blaxthos's section title before I made the edit. [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] If I had I would have changed both. Two, I rarely ever place NPA tags on talk pages, preferring the friendly warning method. I gave Jsn one, Blaxthos one, and Arzel one. So I don't see the double standard there. The only difference is Arzel and Blaxthos both appreciated the note. Jsn took it as some personal affront, and have gone on and on as though it is some conspiracy against him, and apparently continues to believe so. That is why I have been ignoring him (and will continue to do so after today). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what I'm saying is that you jumped into a lively debate and accused me of being uncivil for doing exactly what your old acquaintance Blaxthos did to me, name a section title by the other party's name in a response. You did not accuse Blaxthos publicly of being uncivil, you gave him the respect of talking to him in private instead. That is by definition a double standard. You apologized, I in good faith accepted your apology and claim of honest mistake. I moved on. But here and now you are doing the same thing again with this public "incivility" accusation... you are, yet again, publicly accusing me while saying nothing in public to Blaxthos, who has had just as many "uncivil" "POV pusher" type accusations launched at him. You, this very second, are employing a double standard again. Is it a mistake this time as well? If you think it may be, please let me know. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Lamblasted"?  ;-) There's probably a good reason why editors and admins who've been around for years have made comments regarding JSN's behavior; I've yet to see any level of support regarding his claims of persecution and double standards. Regardless, I think it should be clear to any third party that the section title here is quite appropriate, and at this point I think intervention by (another) uninvolved party would be most helpful. Thanks in advance! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're going for is shock value with that quote I could just as easily start one with "Single Purpose, POV pushing, Disrespectful Troll?", but I'm not going for shock value nor am I wanting to waste anyone's time.

I agree that the intervention of an uninvolved party would be quite helpful assuming they could figure out what you are trying to do. Are you trying to have me blocked for making the mistake of meatpuppetry, for getting a friend at school to join in my first wikipedia debate? If so, that has already failed. Are you trying to accuse me of socketpuppetry? Most admins in my case disagreed with you, but you are entitled to your opinion... but the puppetry case has long been over. Are you trying to get me banned for being uncivil? There are as many quotes in this complaint of people reprimanding you for being uncivil as there are me. If you can't tell me what your point is (and this is the second time I've asked you Blaxthos), then please, third-party editor reading this (who has not been involved in the Fox News channel debate this complaint stems out of), please tell me what you are guessing Blaxthos' point in all of this is. I would love to have an outside opinion, because I honestly do not know. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed short term remedy

I think I've seen enough. The talk page at FNC is grotesquely long for the few issues considered (and this ANI thread is getting there). Much of the recent contentiousness came about following Jsn9333's arrival. Jsn9333 claims to not be a single purpose account, though virtually all edits to date deal with the FNC article. The talk page has been rife with incivilities and assumptions of bad faith, with the occasional speculation as to motive thrown in. I also didn't care for the "proverb" warning earlier, which basically was telling an editor (on a wiki) to stay out of it or they get what they deserve.

If Jsn9333 is not a single purpose account, I propose that s/he is allowed to show it by editing other articles for the next 4 weeks. That is, a topic ban on Fox News Channel (and any related articles) as well as an enjoinder to not edit at the talk pages of anyone who has commented at this ANI thread, to be enforced by blocking if necessary (start with 24 hrs). Following a 4 week demonstration of a willingness to contribute to Wikipedia, these restrictions would be lifted. All editors are cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. This is to be considered effective upon a notice to Jsn9333's talk page, if and when, a consensus here to do so is demonstrated.

Also, should this gain consensus, I will be watching rather closely, and though I don't expect this to happen, any on-wiki taunting, gloating, or basic "poking" (to be interpreted broadly) will be met with a block.

Comments/discussion to follow; uninvolved editors' opinions are preferred. If you are involved (arriving via a noticeboard doesn't count) keep it short please. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor discussion (please help!)

Support R.Baley's proposal (cliff-notes version). I took a look over the talk page of the article. I expected a long discussion, but I found a gold medal winner for WP:LAME. All involved editors ought to-though there's little way to enforce it-make at least twenty major edits to unrelated articles before they again deal with the page on Fox News. Also, Jsn9333, Blaxthos, and others are not helping the project with their impatience. I propose all-you know who you are-be banned from editing anything on FNC articles more than once a day; both sides seem to have forgotten Wikipedia:There is no deadline in their haste. Jsn's requests for comment have been poorly worded, to say the least. I think the topic header of those ought to be changed to a less biased form. Say "is this commentary POV" rather than "is this commentary that shows only one side of the debate POV". Whether or not the assertion is true, it remains a leading question. Jsn has made enough blatant personal attacks that something should be done; of course, others have responded in kind. Banning Jsn from FNC articles sounds like a good idea, but the no poking requirement needs to be strictly enforced. Lastly, I propose the criticism note in the beginning be replaced with a statement that FNC is often considered more conservative than CNN and MSNBC, which is significantly less POV (but needs to be worded so as to avoid weasel words). Scythe33 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I don't think it would be prudent to amend the proposal at this time, but I will definitely consider what you have said. I am hopeful that some more uninvolved editors will weigh in before tomorrow night (there's no hurry, but no sense in dragging things out either). Thanks again Scythe, R. Baley (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor comments

(brevity is a plus) Whoa... Baley, hold on a second please. Before you block me, can you please answer some questions.

• Question 1 - The talk page has been extremely long for a long time because of the multiple RfC's it has gone through. I instituted another RfC which ended up changing some of the wording in the lead via consensus. How is making the page long with a drawn out RfC a blockable violation when that page has very long archives going far into the past before I showed up?
• Question 2 - As far as the "rife with incivilities since my arrival" thing, many of the "uncivil" accusations above that were directed at Blaxthos were directed at him long before I showed up in the entry. That is evidnece that such accusations were being traded long before I showed up on the scene. Why are you not proposing that he blocked for the many incivilties occurring in his presence? What evidence do you have that they became "rash" after I showed up? Shouldn't that involve a count and some actual numbers? I mean no offense, but I'm a law student and if I have learned one thing it is that if evidence is available it should be examined before casting judgment on a person. I'm simply asking for evidence, because I see no more "rifeness" in the current page then in many of the lively debates in the archives. So why block only me?

Is it because I quoted a Proverb when someone applied a double standard to me? Are you serious? It has been suggested below that both Blaxthos and I be blocked from Fox News for a short period of time. Given there are just as many accusations toward him of incivility documented here, either blocking us both or blocking neither of us seems fair to me. Jsn9333 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Block Has definitely been very combative, and I don't see why it would stop anytime soon. In and of itself I don't think this issue is deserving of a ban/block, however considering this user was also convicted of sockpuppetry, I do believe something needs to be done. Perhaps a week long block or something to that effect. TheNobleSith (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Suggestions - R.Bailey's suggestions as reasonable, to summarize the suggestion I support (as I understand it):

1. No immediate block of Jsn9333 (talk · contribs).
2. Jsn9333 is temporarily banned from editing Fox News Channel, Fox News Channel controversies, and any other related articles. Violation subject to block.
3. Jsn9333 is enjoined from editing the talk page of any parties who have participated in this ANI proceeding. Violation subject to block.
4. Jsn9333 is allowed to demonstrate his willingness to constructively improve this project by editing articles unrelated to these topics for four weeks. Following this demonstration of a willingness to contribute to Wikipedia the restrictions may be lifted.
5. All involved editors will restrict their discussion to content. Violation subject to block.
6. All involved editors will not provoke, taunt, or otherwise "poke" other involved editors. Violation subject to block.

My only suggestion is that a codified group of editors (admins?) -- probably the ones who come to consensus regarding these suggestions -- make the final decision regarding criterion #4 (and numbers 5 & 6, if necessary). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't like how her response to this incident alert was basically entirely composed of an attack on Blaxthos. TheNobleSith (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block of both but for shorter time. I would like to say first that Blaxthos' behavior in this dispute seems to be a clear violation of WP:CANVASSING. Specifically, votestacking. Blaxthos selectively notified certain involved individuals about this dispute by soliticing them on their talk pages while not notifying others; the test in WP:CANVASSING is, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." I certainly didn't receive any such notice from him. I don't seem him having notified Bytebear. I don't see him having notified PelleSmith. I do see him having notifed, on talk pages, other editors who have commented here. I was notifed of this dispute by an edit of the Fox News Channel talk page by Jsn9333 (which may also be canvassing?). I would like to say second that I find it amazing that this dispute begins with words that one editor is bothered by a second editor but that the first editor doesn't have time to provide any diffs. Is this normal? Perhaps it is. In any event, I would say this: I have seen utter lack of assumption of good faith on the part of both of them. I'm surprised at the four-week duration of the suggestion. I've seen 3RR violators who have boasted that they will not stop reverting blocked for only 24 hours. I would say that if you are going to block either of them, you should block both; and for only three days or so. Urzatron (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Urzatron (talk · contribs) is the account that was mentioned previously in the ANI report as the otherwise single-purpose account that became active the same time as Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), almost always supports Jsn9333's position, and has at times appeared to egg on the strife quite similarly to Jsn9633. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant about not assuming good faith. Could you try harder to talk about content and not about users, please? I've participated in one vote on this talk page, and I voted to not disagree with Blaxthos. "Always supports Jsn9333's position" is point-blank incorrect. If I were Jsnn9333's sockpuppet or meatpuppet, I would be the worst such puppet anyone had ever seen. This is simply a wild implication. Furthermore, R. Baley is already aware of the non-logged in account I've been using for years to make edits. I suppose that Blaxthos had no way of knowing that before flinging his wild implication just above. Still furthermore, my account is not single-purpose, as any check of my edits immediately reveals. This uncivil nonassumption of good faith is exactly what I was referring to earlier. This is why I would recommend a short block of both of these users. Amazing that I should have to defend myself for having an opinion. Urzatron (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may find my explanation/reply here. I believe we've worked past whatever misunderstandings may have occurred, though I would note that blocks are not punitive in nature (and shouldn't be encouraged to be used as such). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse suggestions/remedies proposed by R. Baley. R. Baley has clearly done significant leg work on this issue, and I believe the restrictions he has proposed will kill off the continuous bad faith assumptions on the FNC talk page, and allow Jsn9333 to prove whether or not he is here to be a constructive editor. The timings sound good to me, and I hope this has a positive result. - auburnpilot talk 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I agree with this and, going further, believe that (^new)editors should not be allowed to edit political or other contentious topics for their first two months or so. However, knowing this is probably impractical, have a welcome template that notices a new user comes charging into a contentious topic and suggests they edit less controversial topics for a while and get to know how wikipedia operates before entering the more contentious issues. MrMurph101 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (P.S. No one canvassed me about this thread. :)) Clarify. If a new editor can act civilly, then no need for my suggestion but still could be applied to those who come in with a chip on their shoulder. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See wikilobby campaign for discussion. No timestamp. Kwsn (Ni!)

Moreschi has extended Zeq's ban to one year with an indefinite topic ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#No.2C_no Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi has indefinitely blocked User:Gni for "Attempting to undermine Wikipedia's integrity by organising off-wiki meatpuppetry to push a nationalist agenda." <eleland/talkedits> 11:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I feel a few involved admins/editors should have their contributions examined on that page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) breakoff. 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Involved" in what? <eleland/talkedits> 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the issue is moot, unless all of them are involved. Under the ArbCom rulings, it only takes one admin to set these editing restrictions, so even if there are forty mad partisan admins, and one saintly person who's never had an opinion on the subject, the restrictions are still OK and have to be appealed to AE, not here. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Wikipedia (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).[51]. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:Dougweller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [52] [53] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's [alleged] carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted[54][55][56][57][58]that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.[59][60]
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group,[61][62] and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Wikipedia works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty bad. I'm tentatively endorsive of a topic ban for some time, simply to let people find other ways to work on Wikipedia and to dilute the personal conflict here. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having tried to reason with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and seeing admin warnings result in more attacks and POV-pushing, as well as a refusal to learn and follow basic WP community standards, I would endorse a topic ban on User:Breadh2o. Having watched the relevant pages and contribs for a little while now, I have not seen any of the other editors be disruptive. The others appear to me to be constructive contributors to WP. However I do believe a lot of their time has been wasted by having to deal with Breadh2o's POV pushing and personal attacks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the support! ;-) Defendant's exhibit A: April 10 lead paragraph in History deleted six hours later by Alun Salt. Defendant's exhibit B: March 30 append to Fringe archaeoastronomy purged April 10. Defendent's exhibit C: read it and weep, if you value the scientific method. Defendent's exhibit Z: my bad-boy essay removed for cause, I'll agree in retrospect. However, for curious admins who may care, it summarizes in my most coherent rant why tilting at windmills matters. WP:BURO Good luck with achieving GA, FA, and the eternal gratitude of the archaeological establishment. -- Breadh2o (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this means you'll be leaving this subject area to work on something where you have a less strong POV; it will make a topic ban unnecessary and this situation much more pleasant for all involved. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that User:Haemo is correct, although I think Breadh2p's last comment about 'good luck' was sarcastic. I think that if he does not remove himself from this topic a topic ban is inevitable.Doug Weller (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cautious about interpreting Breadh2o's latest as a promise to leave; about a month ago he said on the talk page "I'm out of here and you are on notice." He's still around. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Since we've gone almost a day without comment, could someone other than me, Alun, or Breadh2o please interpret the consensus before the BOT moves the discussion to the archives. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest it premature to call for consensus after a mere 48 hours, particularly considering my request for mediation was submitted on April 9 and there has yet to be any response. On April 8 I had contacted user AGK seeking editor assistance, but moved toward mediation when Alun presumed consensus (which could well be interpreted differently, as the results were underwhelming after 3 weeks and 2 of 3 respondents did not engage in a consensus building dialogue) on the RfC and telegraphed an intent to resume edits. Indeed, on April 10, as I feared, he unilaterally purged both contributions of mine which I continue to believe met WP guidelines and policies for reliable and verifiable sourcing, is minority opinion (but exceeded "tiny" minority status) and which qualified both as notable and relevant. If and when mediation is forthcoming, I can make my case, unless I am silenced beforehand in a pre-emptive strike filed after my filing. It's confusing, I know. In any event, I believe a rush-to-judgment 48 hours after the post on AN/I would be premature, especially considering I have honored a voluntary suspension of any edits whatsoever since then, other than this response, and my two other replies above. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a great rush, I was just concerned that we not get archived by the BOT which, according to the recent history, has been archiving discussions after 24 hours of inactivity.

As far as I know, User:AGK has neither contacted anyone about your request nor has he scheduled this problem for mediation. I have posted a notice on his talk page so he is aware of this discussion on AN/I. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Christian (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours by User:Nightscream.

Only one warning was given,[63] at 04:53, 21 April 2008, "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked." At 11:47 Angry Christian replied on his own talk page "What the fuck are you talking about?"[64] and at 16:33 Angry Christian placed a comment on Nightscream's talk page,[65] with the heading "hey what is that crazy shit you put on my talk page about?" and the comment "Seriously."

Nightscream blocked Angry Christian at 17:20, 21 April 2008, with the reason Personal attacks or harassment of other users: User responded to my warnings with profanity on his Talk Page and on mine. and put a block notice on Angry Christian's talk page giving the reason "for responding to my warnings in an uncivil and profane manner on your Talk Page and on mine". A request for unblocking, Request reason: "because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man." was declined by User:Yamla, Decline reason: "Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you."[66]

This block appears to me to be completely unreasonable and unwarranted. I've been participating in work on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article, and have found Angry Christian to be constructive, helpful, and courteous. I've asked Nightscream for diffs and an explanation, but feel that the block should be lifted without delay. .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: at 19:33 User:MastCell asked Nightscream to unblock Angry Christian,[67] with the understanding that he will chill, moderate his tone, and let this go.. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to. With comments such as this, this and this is simply uncalled for and is uncivil. I could go on with the edit comparisons, but the fact is, we don't tolerate such bad assumptions of faith, personal attacks and etc. regardless of the editor. When his block expires in 48 hours, he can constructively contribute. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these comments came after the unexplained warning and then the block. .. dave souza, talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps noting that the block then did nothing to stop/prevent the incivility? --Ali'i 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a relatively common, and unfortunate, scenario: admin warns editor, editor makes angry comment to admin about warning, admin blocks editor. I don't think we should block people because they've reacted angrily to a warning we placed. Put another way, we should not be in the business of blocking people because they were rude to us. And it was rudeness, not a personal attack, that triggered the block. If I warn someone and they respond, "What the fuck are you talking about?" - my immediate response is not, and should not be, to block them. That's a bit too close to using the tools to settle a personal grievance. I don't condone Angry Christian's comments before or after the block, but I think the block should be lifted so long as he's willing to let this go and tone things down. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Blocks should only be used preventatively, and if Angry Christian says he or she will play nicely, we should assume that he or she actually will and unblock. My opinion. --Ali'i 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Block per User:Seicer. It is not true that the profanity started after the block [68] and no indication has been given that the user understands the problem.. As far as the block to pevent further incivility, that's an argument to protect the user talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> This is a bit ridiculous. Angry Christian has been doing yoeman's service in trying to maintain that article's integrity under incredibly trying circumstances. Our number of article views has exploded from less than 100 a day in December to 1000 a day a week ago to around 10,000 a day since the movie was released. We have a flurry of what appear to be sock puppets, meat puppets and SPAs arguing tendentiously about the same issues over and over and over. It is all that the few mainstream editors can do to keep it roughly NPOV and avoid having the entire article replaced with a religious tract.

AC has done great work on that page. And as happens often, sometimes regular editors wear out under repeated assault and say something mildly unCIVIL. So when he responds in irritation to a block, I think this is not that surprising. And the fact that he was unhappy about getting blocked should not be used as justification for the block, post facto. In fact, that really stinks and looks like abuse of administrative tools that is just calling out for sanctions against the blocking admin.--Filll (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unblock per Mastcell. If we blocked everyone who said the equivalent of "What the fuck", we'd have nobody left to write the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with the block. Looking over AC's contributions before the warning, they seem to be constructive and rational. I cannot see any substantial reason for the warning, and I don't think an admin can afford such a thin skin as displayed here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's something missing here--and I also flipped through AC's contributions prior to the warning--Nightscream's failure to justify his warning and his block of AC is a little chilling. An simple explanation of the warning seems like it would have defused the situation. Darkspots (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That puts it pretty well, I think. Escalation isn't always the best solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's nobody unblock till we here from the blocking admin what the original incivility was, OK? No tearing rush. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the user in question might think different about this. No rush, ok, but how long should we wait? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream means well (I say this having met him in person at the NYC meetup) but unfortunately I think his handling of this situation has been less-than-optimal. I agree with Filll's description above (re: Angry Christian doing yeoman's work), and I think this block should be overturned ASAP. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with unblock, and it should be soon. R. Baley (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's wait for a comment from Nightscream before an unblock, to see if there is any underlying rationale. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, let's not wait and crucify the blocker. Just unblock the user! The idea behind the block was noble, User:Nightscream is trying to keep the page free from off-topic commentary, which sadly occurs on both sides in the debate. The problem is that AC was singled out for reasons not at all apparent to him. And it's not clear to me either why AC was picked out. Most importantly, this was not explained to him, when he asked. Just because he got pissed of for being suddenly warned for something he had no idea about, doesn't mean he should be blocked for bad language. The admin banned him out of frustration. There is no need to fight about who is right or wrong here, do what is best for the encyclopedia and unblock the editor, unless you prefer WikiDrama, because you are about to get some very soon. --Merzul (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock now, and let's not go on too much about the blocker's rash reaction to AC's strong language. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus for an unblock here, and I have implemented it. A user who is unfairly blocked deserves to be unblocked as soon as possible. My apologies to Nightscream for not waiting for his input; if there are any problems in the future, a block can always be reinstated but a good faith user driven away by a mistaken block may never return. henrik•talk 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent reasoning, Merzul (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Was getting ready to do as much, myself, as I read down the thread. AC's reaction to the warning was imperfect, but who wouldn't be confused and angry when they're suddenly being threatened with a block for reasons they don't understand, when a moment before they thought everything was fine? Looking at contribs, I'm not sure what specifically precipitated this warning, so some clarification on that point might be good for everybody. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks, everyone. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and considered everyone's comments and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here but I appreciate all those who contributed to this discussion. Angry Christian (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone is still interested in my responding to this inquiry, since as of this writing it is resolved, but the idea that I did not offer prior warnings to Angry Christians and to others on that Talk Page and one their own Talk Pages is false. All you have to do is look that "Obvious Bias" and "Unthoughtful Article" sections on that Talk Page, as well as my Edit Summaries when deleting uncivil comments or comments not related to the article, as well as the Talk Pages of Angry Christian, Dr. Henley, and others, to see this. Angry Christian responded with a disrespectful, profanity-laden rant on my Talk Page, as he linked to above. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but both you and he have been major players on the Expelled article, on roughly opposite sides. That doesn't put you in a good position to be making hair-trigger blocks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No one is in a position to make "hair-trigger blocks", and since I have not done so, but initiated the block only after repeated warnings, both on the Expelled Talk Page (here, here and here), and on the Talk Pages of DrHenley, Hypnosadist, and Angry Christian, the point is moot. Similarly irrelevant and untrue is the notion that I and AC have been "major players" on the Article on opposite sides. He was blocked for violating policy and ignoring repeated warnings, which is completely irrelevant to my participation in the article. As for "sides", the only "side" I've been on is the pro-WP policy side. I've been deleting inappropriate comments from both those who were pro-ID and accused the article of being too slanted, and the evolutionists who did the same. This is not a "side", except in the mind of those who think that NPOV means that all material should be in perfect harmony with their own mindset. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block policy states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." It sounds as though you were involved in a content dispute. The policy is quite straightforward; it makes no exemption for blocks arising from civility issues. Your participation in the article is not "irrelevant" as it creates the appearance (however false) of a conflict of interest. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though I was involved in a content dispute? You mean you didn't actually read the discussion? Why is this? If you actually did so, you'd see that there was no content dispute. There was a discussion on the article's Talk Page initiated by one contributor who accused the article of bias, and others who responded to him. My admonishments to them were made on the basis comments by them that were not pertinent to the article, or that violated Civility, which is what administrators are supposed to do. I did not favor the inclusion or removal of any particular content, and acted in the capacity of a mediator, attempting to respond to the critic's complaints in a way that would preserve the article's factual content accurately without clearly pushing a POV. At that time, I did not have any conflict with Angry Christian over content, nor anyone else involved in that discussion. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read enough to know that it created the appearance of a conflict. Jpmonroe (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I misread it, but it did (on a quick overview) seem a little quickly done - the commentary and block had happened from when I had looked 12 or so hours previously and when I saw it had happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Nightscream, unfortunately warnings posted on article talk pages are easy to miss or forget, and it's a shame you didn't make this clear to Angry Christian when he first responded, defusing rather than escalating the situation. In my opinion multiple warnings on talk pages are needed in conduct cases. While his language clearly offended you, it's best to either disregard such terms or to give a further polite warning rather than moving immediately to a block. Of course these are value judgements, and it's not so easy in the heat of the moment, but from previous incidents it's become very clear that care to give extensive warnings which set out the problem in some detail is essential in dealing with conduct cases. Tedious, and the exclusion of "involved" admins can be taken too far, but there it is. ..dave souza, talk 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nightscream, but to me this edit looks like a very bad call. You cannot on the one hand invoke your admin powers and on the other hand join the debate in the same edit. At the very least, this leaves a very bad taste. Also, this edit was not addressed to anybody in particular, especially not to User: Angry Christian. The other two "warning edits" [69] and [70] also do not address User: Angry Christian (and in fact, they seem to primarily address other users), so I find his confusion after your first and only warning clearly addressed to him quite understandable. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from using and even mentioning your admin status in content discussions, unless it is to deal with clear vandalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your messages, especially Dave and Stephan. I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User and I originally had a dispute over two years ago. This can be seen here: User talk:Hetar/archive1#22/7. I asked that the user keep the debate to the pertinent pages as I did not want to argue over it, and so that other people could also participate in the debate. This user refused to leave me alone, and continued to post on my talk page. Eventually I took the issue to WP:3PO [71]

Other diffs from my talk page showing repeated attempts to get this user to leave me alone: [72] [73]

After I had posted the issue to WP:3PO he finally left me alone. That is until, recently, two years later, when he shows up, out of the blue, still posting about the same issue. [74] After deleting this and again asking him to stay away, he posted yet again: [75], this time referring to me as a "hateful boor."

Please help me. I am not seeking any kind of contact with this user. I have not edited or gone near any articles he is currently working on (or has worked on for that matter in the last 2 years). I have no desire to be involved with him in any way - and yet he continues to stalk me. Any help will be greatly appreciated --Hetar 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling you a "hateful boor" is an violation of WP:NPA. I think that you deserve an apology for that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone mention an apology? Try Wikipedia:Apology - needs more editing! Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The occasion for my revisiting this issue is explained in this edit. I really don't understand what the motive is behind "Hetar"'s abuse---why my short respectful query asking for an opinion on a matter of Wikipedia editing would be answered by a tirade full of hatred. I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered. As for personal attacks: I am the target of that attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a non-negotiable policy. You called Hetar a "hateful boor," a clear personal attack, on his talkpage. The policy says no personal attacks, not to anyone. Yes, Hetar termed your repeated posts to his talk page after he had made it clear that he did not want to discuss a matter with you as "harassment" and "stalking". This seems to be the "attack" to which you refer. But, even if this were unacceptable behavior on Hetar's part, Hetar doing this does not entitle you to call him a boor. Again, I call on you to apologize--sorry, no wikilink, Carcharoth--for your personal attack on Hetar. This is the second time in two months that I have felt you have violated WP:NPA: [76] is the first time I brought a personal attack to your attention, much more mildly. Nor am I the only user to have ever admonished you for your lack of civility: User:Newyorkbrad commenting on your user talk page: [77] as an example. Darkspots (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you accuse me of "lack of civility" on my talk page, that's somehow not a "personal attack" in violation of the policy, but if I call Hetar a "boor" on his talk page, that's a "personal attack" in violation of the policy? Should I have said instead that Hetar was "uncivil" rather than that Hetar is a "boor"? Is there some crucial difference between the two words that matters here? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither User:Hetar nor I have ever posted on your user talk page about anything. User:Newyorkbrad has, so I will inform him of this discussion. I do not intend to argue policy on ANI with you, an administrator; I have stated that I think certain of your edits are unacceptable under policy, but I am interested to see what other editors that watch this page have to say about your edits to User Talk:Hetar. I am often wrong. Darkspots (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Uncivil" versus "boor". If you call another user "uncivil" you're upholding Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. But if you call another user a "boor", then you're violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.
• If you post a short polite request for another user's opinion on Wikipedia editing when, unbeknownst to you, he erroneously thinks he has asked you not to post on his user talk page, then you're guilty of some offense, whose precise nature I don't know how to define.
• If the other user points to another page where he claims to have said to you: "Don't ever post on my talk page", and you respond that it doesn't actually say that, your response constitutes "harassment". But his erroneous accusations against you do not constitute "harassment" or any other offense.
• If a user writes on his talk page, "This is MY talk page and no one can post here without permission", how does that fit into Wikipedia policies? The talk pages exist for communication among Wikipedians, who are not supposed to live on isolated islands. How extensive is a right to forbid others to post on one's user talk page? Are they completely private property? Can I say: no matter what complaints you may have against my behavior, I forbid you to talk to me about them? Even on one's user talk page, which is not private property and which exists for a reason? Hetar claims a fully unlimited right to decide who can post on his user talk page. Only Hetar and the user who said no one can ever post on his user talk page have claimed such a right, as far as I know.
• Which is worse: to lose one's patience with a user when one SPECIFIES objections to their editing of an article, or to say "I have no objections to any of your contributions to Wikipedia, but I hate you for no particular reason so go away and don't do anything that might remind me that you exist"? Must one be meekly obedient to another user who addresses one in that way?

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jeez louis, Michael Hardy done did it again, :-). one might guess here what happened. someone of relatively little mathematical experience made a, probably not very defensible or knowledable, comment/vote on a math related AfD. this is not uncommon and can be a bit irksome to professionals like Michael Hardy. when pressed further by Michael on their talk page, that person responded by being deliberately non-engaging/frigid/wikilawyer-ish. one might say both sides acted in a understandable, although not necessarily reasonable, way. let's everyone just drop it. Mct mht (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The point is that everyone did drop it, then Michael Hardy came back two years later and started calling the user unpleasant names. This is a violation of WP:NPA, and it leaves this user thinking that as long as he contributes to Wikipedia, he is going to have to deal with User:Michael Hardy popping up and leaving messages about something that happened years and years ago. So maybe he stops contributing, because it's not worth the hassle (pardon me, Hetar, I'm getting hypothetical here, bear with me please) and we lose a user because of personal attacks. This, to me, is not "understandable" or acceptable, and therefore I'm not going to drop it.

So, Hetar has made his story clear. He has been through some dispute resolution, and yet Michael Hardy, years later, is posting on his talk page and calling him names. It seems to me that one of two things is true. One, he is being unreasonable to ask that Michael Hardy leave him alone on his talk page. Two, he is being reasonable to ask Michael Hardy to leave him alone. If #1 is true, then someone should politely explain to him why his request is not reasonable. If #2 is the case, then an administrator needs to get involved and make sure that someone explains to Michael Hardy that this isn't acceptable and that he has to stop, and back it up with action when and if Michael posts on Hetar's page again. The reality is that Michael Hardy has sysop rights on this website. It may very well be that the reasons of every administrator who has looked at this thread and not gotten involved have had nothing to do with the fact that Michael is an administrator. That still does not change the conclusion that the community can draw from this situation is that admistrators are above policies like WP:NPA. I might not feel that way (clearly), and you (the person reading this, not Mhc mht) might not feel that way, but that conclusion is still possible to draw from this set of circumstances. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been through some dispute resolution"? What does that mean, specifically, in this case? I think he posted on the "third opinion" page, and IIRC nobody answered. My reason for raising this again after, as you say, everybody did "stop it", is mentioned above: some issues were never dealt with. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The constant thread through your defense of your edits, Michael Hardy, is to compare your edis to the edits of other users. What you do not seem to do is compare your edits to the standards set by policy. You in effect are asking, if Newyorkbrad can characterize my edits as "uncivil", why can I not tell Hetar that he is a "hateful boor"? Why should my insults not be compared to the offense of Hetar's actions? What I believe you are failing to take into account is that WP:NPA is not a policy with an exemption for dealing with difficult users. I also wonder if you've noticed any of the short threads that have come and gone during this discussion with incivility reported, blocks and/or warnings issued, no fanfare. Darkspots (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not insulting him; I was accusing him. You're saying there have been threads where incivility is reported. But you tell me that when I am the one who reports incivility, then that is incivility on my part. Does policy say that I am the only one who is forbidden to report inciviility? I seems to be conventional practice to complain to the uncivil person that he is uncivil, before reporting it here on this page. That is what I did: I complain to Hetar of his incivility on his talk page. I used the word "boor" rather than "uncivil", and somehow that's being considered a different thing. I also said "hateful" and that appears to be factually correct: he hates me, for no reason at all that he's willing to identify. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nilges (User spinoza1111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinoza1111 ) is making posts peppered with insults on talk ayn rand via anonymous IP addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.103.128.42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:116.48.168.16

There may be others. At least one other user with Anonymous IP address has supported him in posts, though I don't think this is the same user.

Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a common problem with him. 202.82.33.202 is his home ip and it is fixed. Any other address he edits from is public and really shouldn't be blocked. He generally loses interest in any topic where his edits are removed all the time. I suggest people stop talking with him on the Ayn Rand talk page and just remove any edit he makes there.--Atlan (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Edward Nilges' rambling comments at Talk:Ayn Rand, full of personal attacks, don't suggest any good-faith desire to improve the encyclopedia or to negotiate with others. The most coherent presentation of his views that I could find is at [78]. He also edits the Ayn Rand article directly, but all his changes are quickly reverted.
• How about two weeks of semi-protection for Ayn Rand and Talk:Ayn Rand? This might cause him to lose interest. If that doesn't work, blocking of some IPs might be considered. (So far we have just the indef block on his named account, Spinoza1111, and no formal discussion of banning that I am aware of). EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in favor of semi-protecting a talk page because of one troublesome editor. A block of the main ip in this case would be more appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the IPs he has used lately:

• 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs) Over 200 edits, running from 3 March 2006 through 22 April 2008
• 218.103.128.42 (talk · contribs) Only six edits, all on 20 April
• 116.48.168.16 (talk · contribs) Only four edits, all on 11 April

Atlan, I assume you recommend blocking 202.82.33.202 for a long period (block evasion) and leaving the others alone. I would support that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that only if he continues this behavior. As he states in his last edit, it was his last and he will now "pursue this matter outside wikipedia". I don't know what he hopes to accomplish there, but it's not our concern. I hope it keeps him busy.--Atlan (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A group of new editors who seem to have found an agreement outside of WP (see talk page of that atricle) made big efforts to change the article of Dorje Shugden substentially without any discussion. Any request for discussion on the changes were neglected. Moreover verified passages were deleted and balanced views deleted and insertion from a anonymous website made. I like to ask you for your help by checking the subject, revert or a temporarily block of the article. I have sent all new editors welcomes and ask for collaboration but as you can see from the talk page they just ignore. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WT:AN. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's a bit of an over reaction to be honest. A group of editors are attempting to improve one article and there is some concern about it? The worse that can happen is that it has to be restored once they are finished. You never know they might even improve the article! SunCreator (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also they are newbies and they are trying to contact whoever is doing the rollback on the articles talk page. I guess that's you? I think you should discuss with them on the talk page, they seem quite genuine, but have not yet grasped yet how to sign there name with ~~~~. SunCreator (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned about User:Wisdomsword who manages to grasp using the ref tags in his first posts. I will leave him a note to describe the links in better detail rather than just listing the top level domain all the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, really interesting. User:Wisdombuddha reverts Kt66 and then Wisdomsword is created who's second edit is "KT 66 is reverting anyone' else's comments with his own sickening and unbacked up bias and i'm amazed he is allowed to do it." Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also kt66 does not seem not to be a neutral editor: [[79]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.238.67 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One quote from an uninvolved editor does not necessarily make User talk:Kt66 out of order. User talk:84.167.238.67, are you an editor who is involved in this debate on the article page? I only ask because this appears to be your first edit.

The entire thing is rather bizarre. I'm not familiar with the subject, but all of a sudden there seems to be 6-8 SPAs filling the page. I don't blame Kt66 at all for bringing this here, and hopefully getting more eyes on the article. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a related thread on WP:AN. Some of these editors are sockpuppets. The rest are unrelated; I suspect there is a blog somewhere that has raised some issue with this. Thatcher 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wisdombuddha deleted others' comments from Talk:Dorje Shugden, I issued a 24-hour block for violation of WP:TALK, based only on seeing the thread at WP:AN. Naturally I welcome review. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an emergency measure, after what I deemed to be his attempted outing of another editor at the current arbitration he is involved in. I was approached privately by both Filll and Durova, who noticed it, and decided it was worthy of oversight. In my opinion, whether or not his hunch is correct (which I cannot confirm) the fact that he was trying to out the real name of someone who had explicitly left the project due to the publicity of his real name is troubling. Sorry if this all sounds cryptic, but it's hard to say much, given the circumstances. I would like us to have a discussion now whether the indefinite block should be made permanent, or how to react. Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection, blocks may be implemented for disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). This neither confirms nor denies the assertion. Standard duration is indefinite, which is generally at least until the editor promises not to repeat the mistake. I have no opinion about whether this particular block should become permanent. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue here is that the user is involved in an ArbCom case, and being blocked will prevent the user from participating. Maybe a stern warning to desist, and a public commitment from the user not to do that again will suffice to unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he vows to refrain from repeating the problem, then that makes sense. Until then he can submit whatever evidence he wishes by e-mail. He isn't a named party in the case. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a named party in the case, and this is a clear violation of policy and one that can often cause the user that is outed to leave the project. I support a block, but like everyone else am undecided about how long. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in an arbitration case isn't carte blanch to do thins kind of thing. No question of an unblock until the user undertakes to behave according to community norms. I haven't looked at their contribs. Are they a problem generally? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Arion is generally a recalcitrant edit warrior that uses extraordinary wikilawyering to weasel his way out of potential blocks. east.718 at 05:35, April 22, 2008

Remain blocked indef. a full appology and promise to knock it off, refactor to two weeks on top of time served. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though he does have a JD in wikilawyering and has been routinely shown to disrupt, I would support (not that I matter) an unblock because he is named in the evidence and may have sanctions forthcoming (nothing workshopped, as of yet). It would only be reasonable for him to have a chance to defend himself. However, the unblock should be limited to the ArbCom case and, if he is not a party to any sanctions, the matter can be brought up here at the conclusion of the case and a decision be made. Thoughts? I take that back, Durova's idea makes much more sense. If he has further evidence, he can submit it via email. Outing is a serious offence and an editor who has been here for 1.5 years should know better. Baegis (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not punitive, Rocksanddirt, and should Arion 3x3 give such a commitment there will be no need, on a preventative basis, to continue the block (in the absence of cause to doubt the commitment, of course). --bainer (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is punitive to give the user an enforced break, as the user seems to be taking the disputed article and activities a bit more personally than is good for him/her. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It's worth considering whether preventative applies to this individual's behavior alone, or in a broader context. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal is an example of how AGF can be gamed. The following exchange occurred shortly before arbitration, during a mediation request. Ilena's mentor acted from the highest motives, but his best efforts didn't help:

Durova: She posted that while I was composing my final warning, so I'll give her a chance to strikethrough that allegation. I'll wait a reasonable interval after her next post to this page and if it isn't retracted she's blocked.[80]

Peter M. Dodge: While dispute resolution is open I would strongly suggest you didn't.[81]

Durova: On the contrary, Wikipedia dispute resolution creates no shield against user blocks. Editors are fully responsible for their behavior and may be blocked during any phase of it by the same standards that would apply in any other situation. Blocking is actually rather commonplace during user conduct WP:RFC and arbitration. The only thing that active dispute resolution typically forestalls is WP:RFAR. I retracted my first warning when you requested it. The subsequent ones are very firm.[82]

Shortly afterward her subsequent actions did merit a block, and then a longer one, and after I extended it I became aware that she had also posted a link to her personal website where she had outed another editor's identity. Rather than alter the block again I opened the matter for noticeboard discussion and arbitration followed. Before the case ended she outed the same editor's identity a second time, and in the same way, and got an indefinite block from a different administrator. Months afterward, her e-mail access had to be blocked because of legal threats.[83]

That example was an extreme case and I do not know Arion 3x3's edit history well enough to speculate how comparable this may be. In fairness to Arion, he did make a prompt promise at his user space not to repeat the behavior, and also e-mailed me. I appreciate that he did these things. What concerns me is the potential that cases like these could make other editors shy away from arbitration, for fear that their identities could be outed with little consequence to the poster. This site has had recent issues with arbitration confidentiality. I'm not sure what's the best solution here with that longer view in mind. Durova^Charge! 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did say that he would not make similar comments again, but the fact is, he did, and after exchanging a few emails with Dmcdevit, I'm not convinced his comments have been made in good faith. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we give Arion a chance, with this warning: "any further activity, insinuations, accusations, that could be construed as an attempt to uncover or release the identity of a Wikipedia user, will result in a permanent ban from the project". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If unblocked he will have to be watched very carefully. My experience with Arion is that he pushes things right to the limit, and that East's remark above is spot on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive editor (Mr. Loner) on the Megarachne, Mesothelae and List of creatures in Primeval‎ is continuing to make unsourced claims in regards to Palaeozoic spiders, and whether T. rex is going to be on the British television program Primeval. Other editors have been reverting his edits for a number of weeks, but over the past few days I have left messages on his talk page trying to get him to stop, and recommend he read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability before he makes any future edits. However, he simply blanks his talk page and carries on as before. I fear this is becoming an edit war as I try to undo his edits. Do anyone have a recommendation about what should be done? The best, Mark t young (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point. The user is perfectly within their rights to blank their talk page. The controlling guideline can be found here, 8th bullet. In general, user talk pages are for communication, and are not intended to be a badge of shame to be forced onto someone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it wasn't that he was blanking it that is the issue. It was that concerns where made to him, and he reacted by blanking the page and carrying on making disruptive edits. Anyway, he has been blocked for 1 week for edit warring. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were many posts last night by various anon editors that the T. Rex would be on that TV show. Not being aware of Mr.Loner, I don't know if these were socks or merely something that has become common rumor. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Supernatural3 created a user page and posted phone numbers [84], purported to be those of celebrities, but stating they really weren't, and encouraging readers to make prank phone calls to them. If some person or organization has those numbers in some area code, they would not appreciate the posting on Wikipedia. I deleted the phone numbers and warned the user against such a practice. Has this come up before, and was my action correct in editing his user page? How much latitude is a user allowed on his user page? How far could the sanctions go if a user persists in such posting? Edison (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only really permitted use of userspace is to tell people a bit about yourself, and for material relevant to improving the encyclopedia. As you say, a little latitude is allowed, but anything that's more trouble than it's worth, for us or anyone else, is clearly not in order, I'd say. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing. I received prank/annoying phone calls from a vandal who somehow found out my phone number for about a week but I think he eventually got bored. I think in this case it is obvious that the user is not posting the numbers with any intention of helping Wikipedia so if they repost them then a block would be in order. James086^{Talk | Email} 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these need to be deleted from history as well, to be sure. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a larger ongoing campaign of phonenumber posting on userpages. See also User:Bryanwood343 where that user posted similar text about calling the phone numbers [85]. See the text also at User:Specialwolf where that user posted it [86]. What is the proper course here to prevent this? RFCU to sort out meatpuppets? Cleanup and warnings or block and protection? Edison (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say block them all for now, and delete the userpages. Practically their only edits are to each other's user pages, anyway. An admin already deleted the revision containing phone numbers from the first page, and that, at least, should be done for them all. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:OVERSIGHT might be in order for some of those cases. SWik78 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the numbers from the other two userpages. One of the pages has apparently been scrubbed of history with them by oversight, and the other two should get it. Is RFCU justified to see if they are in fact separate users? Edison (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the three users, User:Bryanwood343 re-added the numbers to his talk page and added a personal attack against me [87] on the talk page of one of the others, for which I added an "Only warning" on User:Bryanwood343's talkpage. Too severe? Edison (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Too severe?" Heck, no! I would support you if you'd blocked him then and there! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked. See below: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Phone numbers. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs) recently installed Twinkle and has, for the past couple of days, been placing speedy tags on short articles indiscriminately. He was blocked for 30 minutes yesterday (at my request in the Twinkle IRC channel), which is probably the best example of a PREVENTATIVE block that I've ever seen, but did not bother address any of the concerns raised; instead, this morning he merely resumed with the same M.O.

Twinkle is a real problem if it lets people quickly and efficiently destroy the work of others without bothering to do anything constructive themselves, and without having to do any real work. We have too many "editors" who are only interested in doing this sort of "work" in the first place; we don't need to make it any easier for them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate Twinkle abuse, but in doing a [very] quick [and shallow] look at his contribs, it looks like a lot of his tagged articles are getting deleted. *shrug*
Just as a general statement, I'm 100% okay with removing someone's installation of Twinkle and protecting their Monobook as a way of "insisting" they not abuse the tool. (yes, I'm aware that they can install the gadget; if they keep using Twinkle after having it forcibly removed, I'd consider it grounds for disruptive blocking) Not fully suggesting we do that here and now, just tossing it out there as an option if things go south. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Surely an admin can simply remove Twinle from his monobook and then protect the page (not sure if that's possible), or warn him that if he edits the page then he'll be blocked? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. It's like a newbie-biting incarnation of that infernal Microsoft paperclip: It seems that you've bungled an article creation... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own experience, I've commented on 3 articles he sent to AFD. The articles had been in existance for 1min, 3min, and 5min. I'll abstain form recomending action, but at minimum there seems to be a lack of researching his own recomendations.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EVula, the issue isn't whether or not many of the articles he tags are getting deleted--it's whether or not they should. Plenty of admins will delete all speedy noms without bothering to do any work themselves.

Frankly, the whole concept of "speedy deletion" is intrinsically broken, but that's another rant...right now the problem is this one individual going off the deep end. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that comment was based off of a very brief, very unintrusive examination of his contribs; if I wasn't at work, I'd be willing to give it more than a few seconds of attention. I do agree that mindless tagging is a bad thing (though we disagree somewhat about speedy deletion), and it's something that should be addressed. I'd like to hear Ziggy's stance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we won't. Although he has stopped Twinkling all over the place, it remains to be seen whether it's because he's giving up or because he just got a little tired and bored and plans on starting back up again. Regardless, he has made several edits since I notified him of this discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he hasn't; you alerted him at :57[88], and his last (as of right now) edit was at :43.[89] You also didn't provide a direct link to the topic, which is a minor little quibble, but I can see a rather unknowledgable person not understanding that "Twinkles Gone Wild" (which is a great thread name, by the way) is talking about him, and he might not know to use his browser's Find feature to look for his name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this is disgusting and on its own deserves a 24hr block in my opinion... at the least. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm actually left somewhat speechless by this edit summary. I loves me some profanity, don't get me wrong, but... that just seems a bit out of place (though as it's self-directed, it's largely a non-issue, aside from making me go "wha?"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got to agree with Kurt Weber Ziggy has been (IMO) overusing Twinkle without looking into what he's nominating. He's being far too quick off the mark with what he's doing. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-related to the above, simply blanking somebody's monobook doesn't always work. Unless you clear your cache, things removed from your monobook will often continue working. Additionally, Twinkle is now a gadget that can be enabled through an editors preferences, and there's nothing we can do to disable that. - auburnpilot talk 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but if you let him know in no uncertain terms that he is not to use TW, then he'll have to stop or be blocked for disruption. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, which is why it would take a bit more of an eye to ensure that he doesn't use Twinkle. The edit summaries give any Twinkle edits away. Hadn't thought of the caching angle, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, I'll stop. (AFK for a while). Sorry for any destruction I might have caused. I'll just go back to wandering aimlessly through backlogs. Ziggy Sawdust 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggy has also developed a habit of accusing certain individuals of "disruption", simply because they merely created a bunch of articles that happened to get speedy-tagged (and perhaps even deleted). Creating an article that gets deleted, however legitimately so, is most emphatically not disruption, if it's done in good-faith and if the user appears cooperative. Threatening the banhammer with an "only warning" is NOT the answer, and I urge Ziggy Sawdust to reconsider what he's doing here as well. These users he is giving an "only warning" to have done nothing wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion rationales such as "What the hell?" or "Speaks for itself" are nothing more than disruptive. DarkAudit (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to agree with Kurt Weber because I think he makes inclusionism look bad, but Ziggy's record speaks for itself. Deletion rationales should at least be grounded in policy, not offhand and dismissive commentary on the article using IRC-level grammar. Article creators should be treated with some modicum of respect on the order of "we're sorry, but this doesn't meet our standards". A mistaken approach to article creation (the Lessmoore example above) should be coupled with some advice on how to do it better. A brand new article on an intrinsically notable topic may not look that way after the first edit. This is why we have WP:STUB tags. I strongly urge Ziggy to reconsider how to approach article deletion, and how to deal better with other editors. A bad article about a notable topic, even a really bad one, is by no means an emergency, BLP concerns obviously excepted. --Dhartung | Talk 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dhartung. I'd actually go further. Even a bad article on a non-notable topic isn't an emergency. It's often the first thing that a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed newbie does, upon discovering the many possible ways they can contribute to Wikipedia. Any good faith contribution from a new user is the start of a potentially valuable editor's stay here. (Looking at it from the other end, many great editors did some pretty silly things with their first few contribs; they just don't know any better.) The solution is teach them how we do things, ideally in such a way that the "wow, this is cool" factor increases. In case this needs saying, I'm not bashing Ziggy here. Quite obviously Ziggy's own contributions are made in good faith too, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ex-administrator has played a significant role in aggravating Wikipedia's conflict with Daniel Brandt, as seen in his attempts to bypass consensus on the Brandt deletion that was endorsed on DRV, yet again, on RFD this time. As User:JoshuaZ seems to be the integral player in sustaining the incredible conflict between Wikipedia and Daniel Brandt in the past year, as seen on his involvment DRVs #3, #4, #5, and now this new RFD, I sincerely question what good this user is doing for Wikipedia by sustaining this.

The whole damn mess would have been resolved and forgotten back in December 2007, were it not for JoshuaZ constantly picking and picking at Brandt to keep him up. This appears (apologies if this is a lapse in AGF) to be in part due to JoshuaZ himself being listed on the infamous Hivemind page where Brandt "outs" editors. The more important matter here is: is this really worth it, for us? Do we need to have a war every 1-3 months over Brandt? Do we need to allow this one user to constantly keep restarting the fight, every time the community checkmates him by consensus, to keep using different policy-wonk avenues to keep Brandt's article and redirect alive? How many times will we go through the AFD and DRV and RFD cycle, all initiated by or instigated by this one person? Enough. While Brandt's actions are patently harassment, JoshuaZ's actions here, in regards to Brandt, are the textbook example of harassment as well at this point. They can take it elsewhere.

For the good of the community, I put forth that User:JoshuaZ's services on Brandt, under any of his various usernames, is no longer needed. Enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note As pointed out by Majorly below, JoshuaZ also double voted while an admin with his sock account Gothnic (talk · contribs) on a Brandt DRV. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck that btw. Majorly (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Snide insinuations aside, the bottom line is that I don't care about being on hivemind. So Lawrence's fundamental claim isn't warranted. If he's going to make any such attempted ban the least he could do is wait for the actual RfD discussion to be over and see if the community actually agrees with me or not. Oh, and since the closer of the last DRV was explicitly ok with this action Lawrence's fundamental premise there is flawed also. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The community already disagreed with you resoundingly at DRV #5. Stop replying to Brandt's harassment with harassment in kind. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It didn't disagree with me about anything. Prodego agreed that there were timesenstive reasons for people endorsing that were only temporarily relevant which he wasn't aware of at the end of the DRV that made this closer to a no consensus. The closer of that DRV was fine with an RfD. And trying to have a legitimate community discussion hardly constitutes harassment by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest you stop with the personal attacks and baseless accusations. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thatcher has already closed your RDF as a baseless end run against policy and has told you to stop cherry picking Prodego's closing comments here. Please do not be deceptive. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawrence, as I already pointed out to Thatcher I'm not cherry picking anything. It isn't my fault if you persist in not reading what I write. Prodego's close isn't where he said it. It was on his talk page which I've linked to for Thatcher. This discussion occurred after the close. I explained this already. Try reading what people write instead of assuming the worst possible faith and then assuming that reality fits that. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment from Prodego at User:Prodego/archive/61#Daniel_Brandt was: "My view is: I don't think it is necessary, and will not do it myself. But I have no problems if you do. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)" That is hardly an endorsement of the RFD. That is, "Sure, do it if you want, since you're entitled to try anything." That's different than, "My close was bunk." Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence there's no need to have the same discussion in a dozen different places so for now I'll just ask you to look at my reply to you on Thatcher's talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, this discussion needs to be in a public forum. Your reply on Thatcher's page is that Prodego apparently signed off on this harassment off-Wiki. Well, no. We don't decide critical issues off-wiki, and your actions here are meritous in my view of a topic ban. Why you insist on battling so aggressively as you're already in trouble for sockpuppetry baffles me. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wikipedia is not a battleground for someone's campaign - no matter people's views on the target. The community has spoken on this matter, and further attempts to rekindle this nonsense are disruption bordering on outright trolling.--Doc^g 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I must say I've never seen the arbitration committee or the community ever ban a user from a topic which no longer exists (even if most of us are in fact serving various de facto topic bans in this and similar cases). In all seriousness I don't think this would be helpful. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The community can come up with novel solutions to novel problems. How would it be helpful if Joshua were free to constantly fight the Brandt War, again and again, until he gets satisfaction? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There were repeated nominations when there was a consensus to keep. Now, there is a consensus not to, and those favouring deletion want to ban those they disagree with from expressing their opinion on the topic? J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is a move to ban the ringleader of what has become on-Wiki harassment of a BLP subject. If any uninvolved user to DRV Daniel Brandt I would have no objection, but for an entrenched warrior on the Brandt and Hivemind Wars like Joshua to do this again and again smacks of retaliation, disruption, and harassment. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be opposed (this is hypothetical, at least in the short term) to me doing it? I first got involved in the whole thing in the final AfD, and I have taken part in some DRVs; no more than 3 or 4, and only 1 for certain (without looking). I'm just wondering who, in your idea of whatever principle this is based on, is allowed to disagree with you. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can disagree with me. I know this will be an unpopular request, but if we have a problem with Brandt harassing Wikipedians the same courtesy must extend back the other way. JoshuaZ has been the principle figure in agitating the on-Wiki conficts related to this. My call for his being barred from Brandt issues is simply related to the fact that this endless drama cycle would be long since passed were JoshuaZ not keeping the home fires burning for months and months now. We've outright indefinitely banned users for causing less disruption. Telling Joshua he cannot work on this one matter out of a big encyclopedia is trivial. If you were to file a valid DRV with sound policy reasoning to review the last close and consensus, that is your right. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The endless cycle would have ended long before JoshuaZ started his 'disruption' if it had not been repeatedly nominated in the first place. By the last AfD, there were plenty of people saying 'delete, so this ends'. I stand by my assertion that the repeated nominations in the first place were downright disruptive; I can't see why you consider that fine, but JoshuaZ (who has sound reasoning) is 'disruptive'. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The effective standing consensus, by far majority, has been to eliminate Brandt from Wikipedia--this since approximately last December or so. Since then, we've had nearly all the DRVs. 14 different people nominated Brandt for deletion and another what, half dozen admins pulled the trigger as speedy deletes? At least 16-17 people were key in trying to get it deleted. One person has been the central antagonist in running the DRV show for the past approximately half-year. Today was the cake, though, taking the closing admin's comments out of context, taking it to RFD (an out of the way rarely seen place, rather than DRV #6 where it belongs), and then having the gall to challenge Thatcher's close of the RFD as inappropriate--not to mention as Doc details below, by Josh's own words the RFD was payback to Brandt. Why again do we need Joshua's help on Brandt matters? If he can't work or comment on Brandt matters, Wikipedia will hum along just fine. We don't need JoshuaZ here working the Brandt show, and we certainly don't need him trying to restart his little Brandt intifada every few weeks or months by launching mortars at Brandt and Wikipedia Review. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Were it true that there was ever consensus to delete the Daniel Brandt article, then someone should be able to point to a standing AfD in which the article was deleted. The fact that you can't do so show's that there's never been consensus for the way things currently stand, no matter how much some parties would like to pretend otherwise. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree with the proposed solution. The issue long since settled ought not be rekindled at regular intervals. To quote a line I observed on ANI somewhere recently... Josh <-- way, and DB issues --> way. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although I do not agree with Joshua's decisions, it isn't likely that a topic ban here would bring any improvement to the underlying drama. Given that Mr. Brandt's past actions were singlehandedly responsible for the creation of the WP:BAN#Coercion policy clause, this proposal could have the effect of placing a new card in his hand. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions yesterday I opposed the notion that a sitebanned editor's preference has any bearing on who does or doesn't get a topic ban after they're gone. Mr. Brandt's choices have made him more notable; a few months ago his interactions with Wikipedia were a major element of a Harvard thesis. Periodic reviews for notability are appropriate for borderline BLPs (not too frequent I hope), and a topic ban here may have a chilling effect on any legitimate contemplation of future review. If there were any likelihood that Mr Brandt would move happily along with the rest of his life this proposal might be worth entertaining, but this has been a person who consistently generates fresh grievances where no provocation exists, so what would be the preventative value of a topic ban on JoshuaZ? If anything, it might be beneficial that he does stir the pot from time to time, because it temporarily distracts Mr. Brandt from trampling upon the privacy of even more of this nonprofit website's volunteers. Durova^Charge! 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Durova, are you actually advocating thus that we allow one use to wage war on the wishes of a BLP subject because having that annoyance factor from the BLP subject has benefits to Wikipedia editors? If so, I'm very disappointed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawrence, it should be obvious that I'm not. See WP:AGF and straw man argument. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My reasons for supporting this have nothing to do with the merits or otherwise on the redirect. They have to do with the fact that Joshua is seeking to use Wikipedia's content discussion to wage a war on a non-Wikipedian he dislikes. We cannot say "we will pay no attention to Brandt's threats - because content stands independent of conduct" and then say "we will restore this to punish him for his activity". Here is what Joshua gave as his reasoning in the RfD "However, it then became apparent that as I had predicted Brandt had no intention to stop his campaign on Wikipedia. He has essentially [[90]] to continue his harassment and disruption until any mention of him be removed (see his comment that "I'm mentioned too many times on Public_Information_Research and I have some quarrel with that, as it threatened to become a substitute for my bio once the redirect was in place" Therefore I am relisting this redirect. I'd say using wikipedia in an off-wiki dispute is entirely unacceptable.--Doc^g 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I do not know why JoshuaZ wanted to keep this article, although he probably had good reasons. Nevertheless, I think that the assumption that JoshuaZ's activities are exacerbating a negative relationship with Mr. Brandt appear to be unfounded, from my investigations into this matter.--Filll (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read his reasons for yourself. But is looks like "let's stick one in his eye" to me.--Doc^g 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This can equally look like "let's stick one in his eye" when viewed from the other side. Take this to arbitration if you think there is a real problem with behaviour here. No need to resort to dividing the community over a topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at point E and F as a reason for inclusion, this section of Don Murphy talk page. This DIFF. It seems to not be localized to Dbrandt. That is one reason I support this. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• JoshuaZ's actions are definitely causing more Brandt conflict, evidence here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Lawrence Cohen on Thatcher's talk page, JoshuaZ has already bent some rules as it is. Surely this topic ban would be a low level way of avoiding future issues? George The Dragon (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yes, Brandt's actions are "patently harassment". No sanctions (not even low-level) unless there are clear, willful and egregious violations on the part of our editors here, over this mess. R. Baley (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral for now, if someone could point to where the socking was confirmed, I'd appreciate it (if for privacy that needs to be an email, that's ok). I will only support, though, if (1) the socking is confirmed and, (2) it is absolutely clear that the topic ban rests on the abusive use of one or more alternate accounts, not on bringing up a sore subject alone. R. Baley (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose.(addendum to the above by R. Baley (talk)) It would appear that the socking charge has no foundation. I find it troubling that once again off-wiki activity has influenced our perceptions of each other and inflamed our reactions. And let me just state for the record, that I have yet to see anything from JoshuaZ that demonstrates *anything* other than, that he is vigorous proponent for his vision of wikipedia. His every action including and since the voluntary de-sysop has been to downplay drama (my interpretation) something everyone claims to want, but in his case something that he actually did. Move to close this thread and DENY any recognition or satisfaction to outside party(ies). R. Baley (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Really, Durova says it all succinctly. But from the "why should I give AGF to someone proposing a ban to a great editor", this looks like revenge on JoshuaZ, plain and simple. Whatever LC's real motives, this doesn't look good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an additional diff above a few lines posted by me. REgards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had nothing to do with the Brandt mess before DRV #5. My motivation is to stop someone from prolonging this off-Wiki conflict here another six months, as JoshuaZ has given no indication of being willing to stop. I can't have revenge on someone I've had no real conflict with before! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The one man battle against windmills must be stopped. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Lawrence forgot to mention that Joshua double voted in several Brandt related discussions using a sockpuppet Gothnic (talk · contribs), thus attempting to skew consensus to his own personal view. This silly obsession has to stop, now. Article (or lack of it) banning seems the best solution in my view. Majorly (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is there some evidence somewhere that User:Gothnic is a sockpuppet of JoshuaZ? That account has voted in a few other instances with JoshuaZ (here and here and here for example), too, so if it is a sockpuppet, that's rather worrisome. --Conti|✉ 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide proof that this account is a sockpuppet, abusive or otherwise. And if it's not, does Majorly get sanctioned for spreading false information? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These allegations are problematic, if true. I don't see history of a RFCU though or anything in JoshuaZ's blocklog to support the sockpuppetry claims. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This whole mess really needs to head towards arbitration. WP:CCC, people. Since there's currently no community consensus on whether either an article or a redirect on Daniel Brandt should or should not exist, certain admins who are happy with the status quo simply want to stop further discussion towards a new consensus. This is a case in point, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why do admins who abusively sock get to hand in their tools in private while users who abusively sock are shamed in public? George The Dragon (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm absolutely no fan whatsoever of Daniel Brandt, having been on Hivemind myself, but this aggravation needs to stop and everyone needs to move on - Alison ^❤ 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Majorly Alison. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, my thoughts on this may be much like Alison's. Moreover, how utterly nettlesome if a sock was brought in on this. (stricken out following Majorly's retraction) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Alison and especially Majorly. -- Naerii 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Majorly; when you start socking to push a pointrefactored *shrug* the point stands though it is very clear that JoshuaZ needs to step away from the subject; and if not, needs to be made to do so. If someone wants to waste everyone's time again by dragging this through DRV, it should not be him. Black Kite 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and Majorly's information is a bit incomplete. It's actually three accounts abused, as well as logging out repeatedly to support them. Double-voting occured at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2, as well as various occasions of triple voting elsewhere, and even the closing of a DRV that he artificially stacked. Once you start gravitating towards conduct this unseemly to get the upper hand, it's game over. east.718 at 17:45, April 22, 2008 Assuming the best per below (haven't received any information, and frankly I don't care enough). east.718 at 18:17, April 22, 2008
  • Ok to be clear. I never socked. I wouldn't sock. The accused socking was frankly incompetent. I have a pretty decent explanation of what seems to have happened and I'm more than willing to email any user in good standing a summary of the relevant evidence which the ArbCom has seen and is still as I understand it evaluating. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joshua, a suggestion. Rather than offering a lot of us email evidence of why you didn't sock, why not post it here? It would be a lot more transparent! George The Dragon (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can offer some of the evidence here but not all. Part of it requires disclosing very personal information regarding my medical history while other elements involve details of checkuser data. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Majorly has now struck his comment so it may no longer be worthwhile. But for the sake of openness, could you confirm you handed in your tools due to a sockpuppetry allegation that was put to you off Wiki? George The Dragon (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can confirm that. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I found myself here after researching JoshuaZ's history related to deletion arguments. I was trying to understand why this obviously nice person (I've met him, too) was so very passionate about those related issues. After seeing him claim Brandt's harassment as part of a justification for undeleting some page that might upset Brandt [91], I was pretty much forced to conclude that JoshuaZ needs a break from Daniel Brandt, and probably from deletion in general. :( A break can do marvelous things for a person. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it is good to know you think I'm a nice person. I've always thought I'm a bit of a jerk in person (the whole lack of a preview button in real life seems to have a lot of bad results). In any event, you misunderstand my logic there. My point is that we deleted the redirect in part under the assumption that Brandt would stop harassing people as a result. That assumption is at this point clearly false. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken my comment above due to information I have received which shows I jumped the gun a bit when I made that comment. My apologies. I suggest everyone who voted "per Majorly" to think again. Still, I think Josh seriously needs a break from this article. Majorly (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, the accusation of socking is demonstrably false. And I am yet to be convinced that the only reason Brandt is behaving in an unpleasant fashion is because of JoshuaZ.--Filll (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's demonstrably false, but I have enough doubt about it that WP:AGF applies. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't support an outright topic ban because I think we can trust JoshuaZ, but I would simply request he remove himself from the topic. Not that he couldn't participate in discussions if the dispute arises again, but that he -restrain himself- from the Brandt topic, and we could all move on. A noticeboard post, an arbitration proposal, allegations of sockpuppetry, bickering, name-calling... all could be avoided, I think, if JoshuaZ simply voluntarily removes himself from the topic. We don't need the community to fight this one out. So, JoshuaZ, I implore you to help cease this fight by simply voluntarily removing yourself from the topic. Mahalo nui loa, JoshuaZ. --Ali'i 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose an absurd situation where ANI/I is used as a venue to impose restrictions on an editor without any evidence of attempts at dispute resolution, discussion or mediation. I've looked over the evidence provided, Daniel Brandt is evidently someone publicly visible on the internet who chooses to harass WP editors and demands no biography, or even a redirect which does no more than avoid the one step of a search. There's nothing wrong with discussion on whether it's best to let such deletions go, but imposing formal restrictions on editors on that basis is out of order. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's close. Daniel Brandt is actually an individual who spent his entire life building an encyclopedia of BLPs (NameBase), and, one can imagine, enduring endless harassment because of it. His entire goal in getting his biography deleted is to demonstrate to the world that wikipedia is a failure because it gives in to such harassment. It's WP:GAME writ large. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose- due to this not being Brandt's sole or main reason for doing what he's doing. We won't stop Brandt just by removing mentions of him. He may sometimes claim that's why he outs wikipedians, in order to make people change mentions of him, but a lot of other times he says he believes all admins should use their real names in order to be accountable, so he will list them as people have a right to know, or something like that .(I don't agree with him). He has threatened to out and half outed someone over their responses to a thread about Jon Aubrey on here, so he's not just doing it about his own articles/mentions but thinks on principle that those who h thinks have been nasty about BLPs or people under their real names and allow them to be googlable on wiki and other stuff, should be outed in kind, as he considers that the same as outing. But in actuality he outs or lists even people who've done nothing wrong to BLPs, such as Alison and NewYorkBrad, so he clearly just thinks all admins should be listed there, IMHO.Merkin's mum 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. JoshuaZ's campaigns against multiple 'anti-wikipedia folks on the 'net makes him a target, which just gets him moreriled up, to go poke more fate bears. He seems to think it's his job to uphold the highest standards of inclusionism on these few articles for the purpose of pissing off the subjects. That he's resorted to socking to try to get his way makes it worse. I've read about his socking, and it's pretty clear cut socking. If he stops pissing them off, will they stop? Unlikely. But at least the things they like to rage about most can be eliminated or reduced, making them seem more like windbags and spoiled children than real, intellectual detractors, which they aren't. He needs a topic ban. As some like to say "go write an article." ThuranX (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems to be necessary after reading all the comments here. Wizardman 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, the repeated rehashing of this debate is getting tiresome and disruptive. Its getting very difficult to continue assuming good faith. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Durova, whose reasoning is impeccable and eloquent. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This crap has got to stop. Jtrainor (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on the grounds that the logic is ill-founded and Lawrence's statement to the effect that everything would have blown over smacks of conjecture at best, and an attempt to delude the WP population into believing that he can read Brandt's mind at worst. Also, given that it appears that consensus on this issue has waffled more than a sweating politician, I fail to see a "case" here. (And, yes, this crap has got to stop. Work on the encyclopedia, write an article, etc., blah, blah.) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been writing some articles. Some more lined up tonight. I suggest that people do this whenever someone says "Work on the encyclopedia, write an article, etc., blah, blah.". Maybe this could start a trend? Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose JoshuaZ clarified this issue with the admin who closed the last DRV discussion. Even I had asked WJB if he would have been ok with a RfD, and he saw no problem with that (though he didn't want to undelete the redirect for the duration of the RfD). JoshuaZ is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing, and there is absolutely no disruption going on here, at all. JoshuaZ has been far more calmer than I have in regards to this situation, and has acted appropriately far more often than not. This comes down to "JoshuaZ hasn't dropped this", but the fact is that JoshuaZ shouldn't drop this, and he's not being disruptive. I was ready to start an arbcom request until JoshuaZ stopped me, saying that he was already talking to the DRV closing admin. If anything, his actions have helped keep the dispute within reasonable limits. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am unimpressed with JoshuaZ's use of the admin tools with regards to this article [92] wheel warring (albeit over a long period of time) to restore the history. In the deleted history, this edit summary (admin only) bothers me and I think presents a fundamental disconnect with the now-demonstrated will of the Wikipedia community. It makes it a personal issue and that's the whole problem here. It's time to move on with life and quit bringing up Brandt every few months. --B (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "with the now-demonstrated will of the Wikipedia community" That is a complete load of bull. And your assertion that this is a personal issue is false. The way this situation was handled brings shame to all Wikipedians, and he is trying to correct that. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Was the "quit bringing up Brandt" remark aimed at Lawrence Cohen, who's just brought him up? The idea that bending over and doing everything Brandt might like is going to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia is ludicrous. .. dave souza, talk 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Hopefully this will lessen the vinegaring of Wikipedia Review by Mr Brandt, as it is getting in the way of enjoying Somey's humour... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (real reason in edit summary)[reply]
• Support for the good of the project as a whole. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua has been one of the calmest people dealing with this situation. Banning him from dealing with it is probably the worst solution for this situation, which was not caused by Joshua, and would have gotten this far without his involvement. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For the sake of minimsing drama, JZ can ask someone else if he really desperately needs a discussion on the merits of Brandt. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - not only on substantial, but also on procedural grounds. Anyone voting to oppose this topic ban must weigh the risk of being added to the Hivemind. Quite frankly, I can't see how any result can be considered valid, not when voting for one side (but not the other) may place your personal safety at risk. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate the sentiment if we followed that logic we'd never be able to discuss anything where there were serious external threats involved. While it might be relevant when trying to determine consensus for this sort of thing it shouldn't be used to short-circuit any discussion. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of users aren't that intimidated by that sort of threat anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, can't see proof that JoshuaZ is deliberately being disruptive. It is clear that a significant part of the community thinks that a decent encyclopedia should have information on Mr. Brandt but that it's too tiring to fight with him about it, but that does not mean we should stop even talking about whether we should have an article or redirect or whatever or not. Anyway, much more review of the facts is necessary to decide such a topic ban. Go to WP:RFAR and file a full request (including full evidence from both sides and all) if you think a topic ban is necessary. Kusma (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that JoshuaZ has brought more heat than light to this area and his activities are starting to look like a fixation. I don't think further work in this area by him is likely to be helpful, there are thousands of users with less involvement. Therefore I support a restriction on JoshuaZ's activities in this area as suggested. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have asked for a review from the arbs. I believe there to be larger issue here, and I think RFAR may be the best venue. I'm not asking the committee to ban, but I want this examined. RFAR. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure arbitration is the way to go, and I have no opinion at this time on the topic ban. However, the disruption of the user (and others) regarding Mr. Brandt's articles really needs to stop. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an RfC on this user? Only that usually happens before it goes to the Arbs and it hopefully is usually enough.Merkin's mum 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ is not causing any disruption, let us be absolutely clear about that. This issue is far from over, and it's entirely within the community's right to continue discussions about it. -- Ned Scott 21:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of arbitration

Please be sure to understand that my request was not designed to subvert this discussion, and this discussion can continue re topic ban. There is no fourm shopping. Understand that I wanted other things looked at as well. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please...

Not vote on restrictions? WP:CSN died because of that, doing it here puts this place in hot water too. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Per that Deletion decision, this IS exactly the place to build community sanction consensus. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have votes for banning at any noticeboard. Not nowhere, not nohow. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thuran, there's a clear vote above my comment, filled with supports and opposes to the ban. It's not a consensus, it's a poll result. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per FT2 of the Arbcom, this sort of question is something that the community needs to ponder. (Or maybe I'm reading that wrong.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't, but the method used to determine whether a topic ban should be imposed or not is not the right way to go about it. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

So it seems to my reading that a) there is no consensus for a general ban on this topic and b) many users who I deeply respect think I should either be banned or should at best take a break from this subject. So I am going to make a simple compromise proposal which will hopefully handle most concerns in a way that makes a maximum fraction of individuals happy. Proposal; I will not start any discussions about any attempt to restore any Brandt related content. This wouldn't stop me from editing say Public Information Research or Scroogle or something similar but would prevent me from say starting a DRV on the Brandt article or a the redirect or the CIA cookie exposure (Yes I still remember that. As far as I'm concerned it was one of the best things Brandt has ever done). Dihydrogen Monoxide a bit above this makes a highly reasonable argument for this sort of position. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JoshuaZ for being calm and willing to compromise. I for one think this is a reasonable solution (per my request above). Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Alpha Phi Alpha‎
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers‎

There have been a number of reverts to material that I have inserted into the Alpha Phi Alpha article. Miranda has reverted it [93], Robotam [94], and CCson [95].
Based from this [96], It should be noted for the record that Ccson has a direct conflict of interest with the Alpha Phi Alpha article, as he is a member of the orgainization and the article's primary contributor. The vast majority of his edits relate to Alpha Phi Alpha only . This conflict of interest has started to become disruptive as the editor marks changes not made by him as vandalism, issues capricious warnings and is adamantly against the achieved consensus. The article's edit history reflects that. Robotam also has a conflict of interest as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha. This COI is noted as they have both openly declared on their user pages that they have formal affiliation with Alpha Phi Alpha. While this is not directly the issue, it does deserve to be noted because this discussion is happening because of their unwillingness to accept community consensus on the originating discussion and to reflect their desire to have the Alpha Phi Alpha article reflect their POV rather what many sources state.

Now in many of the citations listed in the articles we are given things like "^ a b Wesley 1981, op. cit., pp. 15–16. ^ a b Wesley 1981, op. cit., pp. 19–27. ^ Wesley 1981, op. cit., pp.26–31, 92. " The problem with this is access. Unless you have access to the book this History of Alpha Phi Alpha by Charles Wesley you really can't verify the information. I have listed a book that can be searched by Charles Wesley called "Charles H. Wesley: The Intellectual Tradition of a Black Historian " [97]. This book is by the same author. It also allows references to easily be sourced.

There have been other cases involving some of these users who have run into conflict with other users involving these articles.

• Including Miranda with [98]] [99] Miranda vs Justin1978
• Justin1978 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Infobox Fraternity Justin1978 vs Robotam & Ccson & Naraht
• Justin1978 User:Justinm1978/rebuttal [100] Justin1978 vs Miranda

Which shows some of the conflict that has come about as a result of people interactions in these articles. RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your content dispute on Alpha Phi Alpha, but I'm not entirely certain why I am included, since I haven't reverted any of your proposed changes. The issues that User:Miranda and I have with each other are not related to this content dispute. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justinm1978 included you because of your past interactions with all 3 of these users. From what I saw here as well. [101]. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. thank you.RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What admin action is necessary here? As these mediation cases were just filed today, I would recommend that you give mediation some time to hash out the issues you raise. Posting the dispute here in addition to those two (very similar) cases is unlikely to be productive. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an admin just to watch, possibly comment on the mediation cases. RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not participating because I think this is a sock of a banned user. miranda 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda did a checkuser on me and I was shown to not be related. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 [102] RobertOgleFan (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, checkuser doesn't totally prove a sock's innocence. A banned user could be traveling to other computers in other states or use proxies. Second, I feel like that the user is bringing out drama without consulting the steps of dispute resolution. He should start on the talk page. No administrator action is necessary. miranda 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the birthdate of Jacob Green696 from an infobox on his userpage. He's fifteen. I left him a note pointing to identity theft as a reason why posting such information is a bad idea. With minors though, it's even more complicated. Do we have a policy that addresses this? Should the information be oversighted? He also lists his full name. Aleta ^Sing 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, people are allowed to release their own details. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a policy. There is an essay based on a request for arbitration. --Onorem♠Dil 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Oversighted to protect the minor. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Personally, I think that if they're fifteen then they're "major" enough to know that it's dumb to give out your details online. If he's an idiot, that's his problem, he must know the dangers. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was not yet fifteen when he added it. He also did not object to the removal, instead thanking me for it. So do I send an email to request the oversight? Aleta ^Sing 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he states (and I have not removed) what day is his fifteenth birthday, which allows anyone to easily deduce the birthdate. Aleta ^Sing 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not every 15 year old knows everything. Yes their told not to put out personal information online, but they don't think anything will happen from it. I know I did when I was that age, even younger. I don't think there is a policy or anything that states minors can't post their birthdates, so I don't think it's much of a problem. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)(EC) I think give him a message on his talk page, explaining what oversight is, and let him decide if he wants it oversighted. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I'll do that. Aleta ^Sing 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and left a message on his page, feel free to add to it.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did (and apologized for not having notified him of this thread myself). Aleta ^Sing 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for helping me out/backing me up, although I basically did the same thing for you tee-hee. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm here.I guess I proboly shouldn't have put it on there. I was just excited about being to make a infobox I out all my info in there.I'll be careful from now on.Mr. Green^chat 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel too bad, I've seen a boy put his full name, school, town and date of birth up before! (I removed it and explained to him.) Merkin's mum 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted on the BLP noticeboard requesting some extra eyes on this article, but I am not sure how much attention that board gets. It seems Mr. Leopold has his lawyer (or someone claiming to be) now editing this article and issuing quite an onslaught of legal threats and the such. Would anyone be willing to weigh in on this? Arkon (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some range blocks here? Grsz^talk 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have full-protected the page on the least-negative version (per BLP, when in doubt, leave it out) and suggest that this be debated on the talk page. It is certainly unacceptable to call someone "controversial" in the first line of their biography. FCYTravis (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who looked at this. Arkon (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted about this to the BLP/N and have actually been in contact with Mr Leopold, via an IP address. He's pissed because he believes the article misrepresents some of his statements, makes false statements about his journalistic integrity which he disputes, among other things. For example, one of the versions included the line "past liar, convicted felon and former alcoholic and cocaine addict" verbatim. There's a line to be drawn between "hagiography" and "BLP violation" and this article does not tread it very well. Remember WP:DOLT. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why are we fucking around here? let's not "revert to the less negative article" - aggressively stub the article and start again from scratch. We are far better off with a stubbed and sourced paragraph than an article of dubious quality. --87.114.40.124 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general (I haven't looked at everything in the article, I just reverted wholesale removal of cited material from RS's) the article is well sourced for any critical statements. He doesn't like it, that much is obvious, but that isn't reason to stub it. Arkon (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here? Ziggy Sawdust 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singlet_state&diff=prev&oldid=207344815. This concerns a four letter F word directed at my person I can well do without. Can this IP be blocked?, rolling back does not help. Thanks in advance for your reply V8rik (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC}

Wikipedia is not censored. Blue Laser (talk)

True but personal attacks are not acceptable. A brief block was given for all the good it will do. JodyB _talk 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, looks like an edit war to me Ziggy Sawdust 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but look at the IP's contributions. This attack is not isolated. JodyB _talk 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war or not, that's a clear personal attack and as JodyB said is never acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I blocked User:Bondkaka as a sockpuppet of User:Camptown based on continuing use of the sock for voting and other shows of support as specifically barred by the sock policy.

He used the sockpuppet to select his own nominations for the 'did you know?' template on main page (by listing them on the next update page). Here are the first diffs from Bondkaka's 5 most recent batches on t:dyk/n, every time the article was initially listed by user:camptown as shown in the 'credits' section: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]. He also used the sock to show support on his position on Camptown's candidates for the 'in the news' section of main page. Here are the 6 most recent comments on wp:itn/c (barring spelling and formatting edits): [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]. There are more shows of support on various other talk pages, and pretty much every edit I checked from the past few months was in support of camptown, either in reverting to his preferred version, or discussing issues on talk pages.

And now he's threatening to leave the project if the sock isn't unblocked :"Enough is enough. You have wrongly accused me of creating sock puppetry – and block the innocent user Bondkaka based on his DYK-nominations, spreading false accusations that I created user Bondkaka for my own benefit. If you don't unblock user Bondkaka immediately, I will seriously consider leaving this project." --Camptown.

I'm bringing it to a wider forum since he's disputing the issue. Comments are appreciated, thanks. - Bobet 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse block. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed I don't know what the point of that was. Nothing really wrong with self-nomming so why bother? :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that self-selecting isn't really strictly forbidden but is considered to be a bit undignified...If something's running late, simply nagging another DYK regular would be totally fine. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sorts of issues raised in this TfD are not the type of issues normally covered in an RfA. Considering this seems to be more of a factual rather than a consensus dispute, and considering that concerning those factual dimensions I am out of my depth, I bring it before the noticeboard to see what other admins might think (or know). RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done here. Significant amount of admin and editor time are tied up in babysitting this user and his edits. A quick glance through the history of his talk page shows he has no understanding of Wikipedia, lacks the maturity to work in a collaborative environment and still attempts to 'mentor' other editors despite warnings not to do so. There is no evidence that he, User:Nothing444, User:Basketball110 and/or Stormtracker94 are providing any benefit to the project. Thoughts? Standatoms1985 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to comment at this stage, do you mean User:RyRy5, User:Nothing444, User:Stormtracker94 and User:Basketball110? George The Dragon (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being much too harsh. While I agree that they aren't the most mature editors around, they've still helped contribute to the encyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]Harsh words coming from someone who themselves has yet to demonstrate "any benefit to the project"...care to provide specific examples? — Scientizzle 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Standatoms needs a lesson in patience, civility, no personal attacks, and all kinds of other things *ahem* sock *ahem* before posting at ANI about other users. Just my friendly opinionKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore them, and they cannot waste your time. Those trying to mentor him are utterly misguided, but it's not harmful for them to spend their time this way. It's a waste of their time of course, but we cannot exactly demand that volunteers do or don't do whatever we think is best. I'd be in favor of blocking him for disruption if he doesn't cut out the mentoring nonsense, but other than that, what is there to do? Friday (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Friday in that those who are "admin coaching" them are just giving them false hope but until such a day when we can ban those who bring nothing to the dance, nothing can be done George The Dragon (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to raise valid concerns without being judged. I'm not a sock, I edit primarily under an IP except when it's not convenient and/or possible as is the case now. In addition to "mentoring nonsense" he's closing AfDs when he has no idea how, 'creates' articles for other to fix his mess -- just ask User:Metros about how many messes he's had to clean, and generally makes a nuiscance of himself. None of them are any loss, RyRy is the worst of the lot. Standatoms1985 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do have some degree of sympathy with you and would love to kick all of the social networkers off Wiki (and the problem is getting worse) there is no consensus to do that. On a related note, I would point to RyRy's constant requests for rollback and note how it ties in with my concerns about how that particular tool has become the latest "level up" option for the role-players, but what can we do? Let them have their fancy userboxes and let's just hope they keep out the way. One recent problem that did come up - by trying to restrict role-players and networkers away from user-space, they are then lose on mainspace, so perhaps we should just let them get on with it George The Dragon (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, nothing needs to be done here about RyRy5. There are no policies on "admin time" that I know of. There is no issue here. We should talk about Standatoms1985 though (WP:DUCK). Anything you want to tell us? Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standatoms, did you notify the users that you are adamantly complaining about, about this thread? Such is the custom. Not doing so is rather sneaky, as the users don't have a clue what's going on, and therefore cannot defend themselves. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished informing him or her and came back to find Keeper's note. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw no one ever actually asked Metros like he suggested. I feel left out! Metros (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen these users' (especially RyRy5's) contributions and can say that I don't find it to be *disruptive*, I agree that RyRy5 needs to drop the mentoring stuff and should put of his admin coaching for a while because he's just gaining antipathy with it. If these admins wish to spend their time helping these users than I guess it just shows how patient they are and should be applauded for their efforts. RyRy5 has been outright warned, but all-in-all userspace editing does not harm the project and neither does the chatting, I think RyRy5 and his friends just need to be told this and the rules then enforced but the point is they have made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. So, Ryan, take this as a request from me to stay to mainspace editing, keeping the smalltalk to a minimum for now, putting off all the adopting, admin coaching and rollback stuff and just have fun writing articles for now, when other editors feel you're ready to have rollback, adopt users or be an administrator, they'll tell you, but I can see that you are in disfavor with some regulars because of your apparent interest for 'advancement' rather than writing articles. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was really proud of RyRy when he told me today that he's accepted an offer to be adopted by someone. I think it's a huge step and it goes a long way towards his credibility in my eyes. There is no doubt in my mind that he's got great intentions, and that he now realizes that there are people who can help him advance quickly in his understanding. - Philippe 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree that these users should find more productive things to do with their time rather than admin coaching. General mentoring seems far more appropriate given their current standing in the community. Daniel (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to propose the addition of a public relations section to the above article. I think this will improve the article, as public relations is just as important a part of apartheid as is brute force.

Seeing how contentious the article was, I obviously didn't edit the main article. Rather, I added a section to the talk page, and linked this apropos article, which I suggested using as the first item in the proposed section. [114] and [115].

A user reverted my edit three times, and refused to discuss it. Once I warned him about the 3RR rule, "another" user immediately logged in an reverted my edit. It's all detailed here. [116] or [117]

I'm not sure what to do, as I'm not even allowed to discuss my proposed change to the article. Thus this rules out 3PO or mediation. I can't do a 3PO if the proposed changed isn't even allowed onto the talk page.

--Ocean8765 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is because your comments are off-topic and violating WP:TALK. You are bringing up a blog that attacks specific Wikipedia editors. Further, it is not about "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid." Rather, it is about allegations of a non-governmental organization's efforts to influence content on Wikipedia. You are not proposing an addition to the article so much as you are simply posting the link to an irrelevant blog. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, so that the point is not obfuscated, you wouldn't even allow us to debate the addition to the article. Now that you are willing to discuss it a bit, how do you know what their affiliation is with the Israeli government? Besides, who said apartheid is exclusively the domain of government agents? Private citizens have always helped a society achieve its goals. Please add my change back to the talk page so that we can debate the merits of adding it to the main article. --Ocean8765 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the talk page is not the appropriate place for such off-topic things to be discussed. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's relevant, again, is because it's about Israel's public relations machine, which is an integral part of maintaining the conditions which many people consider to be apartheid. Of course, by deleting the proposed addition from the talk page, you prevent even a debate on whether to add it. This debate that you're having here belongs on the article's talk page. Please restore my edit. --Ocean8765 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sweet. A fresh single-purpose account from the anti-Israel side trying to get some ideological profit out of that miserable story. Last thing we need right now. Out with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about crossing the line into abuse. I'm only proposing adding a reference to a credible article (the Wikipedia editors mentioned in that article have been banned for a year, as I'm sure you are aware.) Since when can't we even debate additions to an article?--Ocean8765 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is allowed into AoIA's talk page, then that'd open the doors to all of the other article talk pages that this CAMERA mess has caused. Rather than having tangential discussions on many pages, why not bring your concerns into the centralized discussion area, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign ? Tarc (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block Terikoso (talk · contribs) as a Roitr sock? (See WP:LTA/Roitr.) For the duck test, see this edit by Pasteriso (talk · contribs) (who checkusered as a likely Roitr sock) and the same edit repeated by Terikoso. Kelly ^hi! 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also created this page, a Roitr trick. Someone should probably protect that page against recreation or he will try again with a new sock. Kelly ^hi! 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Given the other day's CU results, it seems this user is more active recently. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the history shows some recent tag team vandalism by what looks like an IP and a possible sock situation... user:Kaine65 and user:capitankane seem to be the same, given that capitan came to the article right after, and reverted in such a way that some vandalism was left in. Admin review please? SSP? RFCU? thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following situation acceptable? I may soon suffer a conflict of interest in a matter involving a specific Wikipedia article. To be clear, there is absolutely no COI at the moment. Am I correct in thinking it would be fine for me to set up a sockpuppet account, use that account and that account only, while disclosing COI, to suggest changes on the article's discussion page, but refrain from tying my primary account to this sockpuppet account due to privacy issues? Furthermore, again while disclosing COI, to use this new account (and only that account) to revert simple vandalism on the article directly? If either of my accounts were blocked, I would refrain from using the other for the duration of the block. If this is not acceptable, I will not set up a new account and will simply refrain from all edits to the article in question. --Yamla (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points; Alternate accounts are acceptable, although not encouraged. There is nothing about alternate accounts needing to be identified as belonging to another editor, AFAIAA (certainly the alternate account category is rather bare). Your only problem would be the consideration of operating Good Hand/Bad Hand accounts. However, the second point is that COI does not mean the editor is not permitted to contribute, only that there should be extra vigilance that NPOV is adhered to in both the subject and dealing with the contributions of other editors (i.e. it is not operated as a Bad Hand). The third point of the two is that dealing with vandalism falls outside most policy "don't"s. In short, yup - if edits within that admitted COI subject/article are made in accordance with WP policy it shouldn't matter if it is an undisclosed alternate account of another editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't cross the streams. Thatcher 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is scary when admins have secret alternate accounts. Is this a very important issue for you? Could you instead provide input via email to an editor you trust, if you think that the article is missing some important information? Surely others can revert vandalism just as well as you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share some disquiet here. Do admins disclose their "secret" accounts upstream, i.e. to 'crats? How does one objectively determine vandalism when possessing a COI? Are there safeguards in place, given that admins are apportioned a certain degree of trust? Franamax (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"LOOOOLL COCA COLA SUX DIX" is pretty obviously vandalism, while "Some consider Coca-Cola's activities in Foo controversial...(source)" is pretty clearly not. When there's any ambiguity, the conflict of interest becomes relevant (at which point it's wonderful that it's being disclosed -- generally COIs aren't). LessHeard vanU's post covers it well enough for my taste. There are certainly ways this can go wrong, which is why I'd recommend taking special care. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is scary when admins have secret alternate accounts. Agreed. If there's a need for a special anti-vandalism account for one article, there's a problem, and this isn't the right way to handle it. It smacks of WP:OWN. --John Nagle (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I don't see the section in WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts that says "unless you're an admin, in which case you're just SOL." The rest of your comment indicates to me you don't understand Yamla's reasoning for wanting an account -- it's a privacy thing, not so he can claim Supreme Ownership. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is allowed an alternate account if they follow WP:SOCK. Admin or not. We respect people's wishes to be anonymous and if that is scary then so be it. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's scary to people then there may be legs for policy to change; just a thought. Any policy can change and likely will someday. Nothing if ever final here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, if it's this concerning, why not just ask some you trust to watch the mystery article? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. I think the unspoken assumption here is that Yamla's main account will not edit either the article or its Talk page. Perhaps that is so obvious that it makes me look stupid for saying so. That's okay. :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I tried to make explicit that my main account would not edit either the article or its talk page going forward. It seems to me that some people have brought up some legitimate concerns here. For the record, I think so long as an admin is willing to disclose the alternate account to, say, 'crats, this sort of usage is supported by our existing policies and guidelines. However, because of the concerns raised here, I hereby declare that I will not set up an alternate account and will also refrain from editing said article myself. Again, I think it would be okay for an alternate account but I also think it is just generally a good idea for an admin to err on the side of caution, and so that's what I will do here. Anyway, the article in question is only occasionally vandalised and I'm absolutely sure others can deal with the vandalism when it happens. --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, this is allowed. As Thatcher says, just don't cross the streams. As long as there's no interaction between your accounts or overlapping areas of editing, nothing is actionable. WilyD 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Ehccheehcche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has vandalized the page Super Saiyan after a final warning was given. I have brought this up here since my last vandal reports at WP:AIV were ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that removing a blank section heading really amounts to vandalism, especially since other editors there agree with the deletion. . This ed. has made a number of constructive edits, including the restoration of articles after vandalizing by anons. I do not think action is called for at this point. DGG (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These edits constitute a legal threat. He's also edit warring to remove well-cited information, probably close to 6 or 7RR, I'm not even bothering to count anymore. Moreover, he's the true definition of a single-purpose account. Any help will be greatly appreciated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I will take various actions specified in Wikipedia policy in response to all future introductions of potentially defamatory claims that are not supported by references to sources permitted in biographies of living persons." I consider that a statement of intent to ask for deletion of the material under BLP, or even oversight. that's not legal threats. I'm not defending his general editing practices, which are possibly worthy of a final warnng about a possible topic ban. . DGG (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a threat without validity. How could anyone possibly consider it defamatory that Marks is an Intelligent design proponent, when he has written on Intelligent design, Baylor closed down his website because of Intelligent design, and he's mentioned in the Expelled, the intelligent design promoting moving. So, a legal threat that is just used to scare off an editor, is a legal threat that has no basis and is frowned upon by Wikipedia. Moreover, he violated 3RR after a final warning, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to file a 3RR complaint. And now it appears that the editor is in fact Robert Marks, so maybe his motives are not so good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

We can use some more eyes there, the old link has floated up-page and lost in the churn. Basically, an off-wiki troll organization was uncovered from leaked emails manipulating Wikipedia content, fronted by now-indef banned Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a long-time contributor, and so far at least one other member of this off-wiki group has admitted to it and is discussing on the bottom of the sub page. More eyes needed. This one is a fantastic mess. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, it's on OTRS [118]. This appears to be a relevant link, though I haven't checked it yet, may be NSFW or other nastiness⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CAMERA people are on OTRS? As in they contacted us over this? [[User:Lawrence

Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] § t/e 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just worth pointing out a possibly pedantic inaccuracy - he's been banned for a year, not indef as stated - the topic ban is all that is indef. I'll make further comments when I have considered it enough, but basically I support everything Lawrence Cohen has said on the matter.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'd like to see more eyes to evaluate the truth of this comment: Shocking McCarthyism. Where does one go for a hearing? I did not verify anything except that I was a member of this group that the Electronic Intifada has dug up some emails. As I said, as far as I know it was not a CAMERA group. But that aside. I thought in America we were all allowed to join any groups and were responsible only for our own words, not the words of others in a group. Ditto with our actions. I deeply resent and dislike this situation. I am being judged not for who I am or what I have written, but by people I don't know and for my membership in a group and for words that did not get written here. I have not tried to push any "agenda" but to see that my side is fairly represented. I don't know zeg and who he is, but he seems to have been banned for a year for something that he apparently denies. Now you people want to ban anyone who was a member of this group. Talk about unfair. Juanita (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC). I'm tempted to agree, just scanning through that long page. The siege mentality and the 'thrill' of the investigation displayed by some of the editors in that conversation is worrisome to say the least. Avruch ^T 23:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This non-admin agrees with Avruch. Arkon (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we weigh in on that subpage about how to deal with a direct attack on Wikipedia's NPOV in an orchestrated manner, including getting "stealth admins", by a group of nationalists. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reposted it here, and here it is. I think we judge each and every editor based on their actual actions on-wiki, not what we think they might have tried to do, assuming its them, off-wiki. If there is absolute proof that Zeq was orchestrating an "direct attack on Wikipedia" through "stealth admins" then maybe a topic ban is in order, but an indefinite (or equivalent) ban? How much of this "direct attack" actually made it on-wiki? Any evidence to suggest there is such a thing as a stealth admin? Moving past the Zeq block, the discussion is now all about ferreting out and blocking anyone else that might be involved - based on the "outing" done by a pro-Palestinian (and importantly - anti-Israel) web site. The search for clues to see who wrote some of the e-mails is creepy, and I imagine if you connect more editors to e-mail accounts there will be yet more calls to block or topic ban people without so much as a cursory evaluation of their actual edits. Avruch ^T 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I don't really like the vibe on that sub-page. Very mobbish. Anyway, my views on this are the same as my views on the drug war. Punish people for breaking the rules if they do, don't crystal ball them into being vandals, pov warriors etc. Judge people on wiki, by what they do on wiki. Arkon (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, admins on that page have stated they have confidential (i.e. for admins only) evidence that Zeq is indeed the zeqzeq2 that organized the attack plans. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack as in, maybe, taking Wikipedia down? Hacking the pages? When you say attack, do you mean something like that? Or getting a group of like minded editors together to edit a particular group of articles with the idea of changing the POV? The second isn't a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd call it an attack - Zeq's ridiculous phrasing of it as a war and an army notwithstanding. I'd be more comfortable with this if there were a long list of Zeq's edits saying "This one, this one, this one and THAT one violate this, this and that policy" rather than "See how it sounds like he wrote these emails where he organized a stealth attack against the home base and a sneaky infiltration effort to get enemies behind the front lines in positions of authority. We must circle the wagons and protect the fort!" Avruch ^T 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch. That is not unusual language. Itzse lamented that Jaakobou went 'missing in action' when the latter suffered a week's suspension recently. One smiles at the computer screen, but cannot help thinking 'these guys really think editing in here is a patriotic act in defence of their nation and take the rest of us as pro-terrorist militants pledged to a jihad for systemic inaccuracy'. Zeq is not the only one to employ that metaphor of an intractable facing off between enemies. I'm not the punishing kind, and late last night I even asked for a suspension of the ban on him, simply on the grounds that I felt deeply uncomfortable in something like this hitting him over Pesach, and hoped that a little reflection in this period on his part might have helped a better dialogue with his 'interrogators' than he gave. There was an edit-conflict, and perhaps, for the best, it didn't go through, and got lost. Though I've had a lot of difficulties with him (and he with me) I reflected that the new measures in force on these articles had certainly made editing pages he works on as well, easier. But in the light of those emails, I couldn't help but wonder whether I was been lulled into complacency. Look at it again from the point of view of an average editor. Negotiating the drafting of some of these pages is extremely arduous by its nature, but a general principle seems to be lost on many. Many, perhaps most, of us are not editing Israeli-related articles. We are editing articles on Palestinians, mostly edited by Israeli/Jewish people and a mere handful of Palestinians. In trying to get the Palestinian side equally represented (I prefer to use Israeli/Jewish sources for this, for they are the best), we find that this effort, which is fundamental for an encyclopedic neutrality, is regarded as hostile to Israel's interests. There is a strong effort to associate mention of criticism of Israel's policies in territory technically Palestinian as a variety of the New Antisemitism, or as exhibiting, depending of the source Jewish self-hatred, or hatred of Zionism, or Left wing fringe lunatic views. One can deal however with 'attack' editors who see things in a powerful nationalist light (or darkness?), though it requires a huge amount of time-wasting niggling on absurd cavils (dozens of pages to justify the use of 'uprising' to describe, as international scholarship does describe, the al-Aqsa Intifada), with still no verdict in. But, for someone not gazing at the problems afflicting these articles except from the rarefied airs of arbitration-administration, but rather working past endless roadblocks of wikilawyered obstructionism, the prospect of having a tagteam effort seeping in to stack the numbers' game and complicate things, is not something that leaves one free to dismiss the prospective exacerbations as trivial. I agree that due process requires review. I disagree on your dismissal of the intense examination conducted of those emails as 'mobbish'. The emails themselves were 'mobbish'. I withheld my own comments for some time in the belief that some wrong might be wrought on otherwise innocent victims, given that EI was not quite the source I would personally like (I never quote it). But I'm afraid the three editors (one closing down access to that email group) gave ample if indirect corroboration of the suspicions that they were indeed part of the prospective gaming mentioned by CAMERA, and the administrative action taken at the time was, as an interim act, not improper. It simply requires review, to make sure that haste has not induced oversight, and that those punished be allowed full formal redress if they can prove that they have been harshly done by. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your comments, as ever, Nishidani. Before anything else, I just want to point out that I didn't describe anything on the subpage as 'mobbish' - that was Arkon, below my comment. I understand the frustration that editors have with coordinated efforts on articles in particular areas of conflict. If a coordinated group with a particular point of view is effective, it makes attempting to maintain a neutral point of view extraordinarily difficult. This is a weakness inherent in a consensus system - minorities that make up a majority in a small subset of the community can have an unreasonable effect in their area of focus. I do understand the difficulty that is perhaps unique to the Israel/Palestinian conflict - obviously, the Israeli and Zionist contingent has the advantage in terms of technological access, a free and advanced press, a comparatively wealthy and educated population, etc. The two dangers, in this area, mean that editors of articles within the ambit of the conflict must be especially vigilant for bias in their own edits and those of others, and especially careful to craft representative and neutral articles. What I do not want to see happen is the transmutation of this worthwhile effort into a wide ranging investigation of the off-wiki activities of editors - particularly based on information found at electronicintifada.com. Our management expertise (that is, our ability to patrol content and conduct on-wiki) doesn't carry over to sleuthing against alleged POV-warriors off site.

• The risk here is that we will sanction these editors based on something other than their on-wiki conduct. I don't agree with Moreschi's description of Juanita's (sorry, can't remember the username at the moment) comments as hysterical - I think she is fully justified in seeing the work towards bans on the subpage as an attempt to punish association rather than conduct. This is an endeavor we should not get into, even at the risk of making more work for ourselves in presenting neutrally worded content in controversial fields. Take a page from how other sorts of administrative actions like this have worked in the past (including, incidentally, ArbCom procedures). What ought to be required is a cogent and comprehensive review of the edits of editors who are proposed to be banned. Comparisons of e-mails with anonymous addresses, linked somehow to pseudonymous editors, just don't cut it in my mind. Still, perhaps the community disagrees. Avruch ^T 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sensible comment that was ignored:

"We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it, trained..." Good times. Actually, the mechanisms to deal with this are already in place. I seriously doubt that CAMERA-solicited POV-pushers will slip under the radar; the problem in such situations is more a matter of the will and energy to deal with obvious problems. I'd suggest the following as good general guidelines for this or any such situation:

• Watchlist requests for adminship and demand evidence of actual commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia policy in admin candidates. Wikignoming and rolling back vandalism are great, but they don't require the tools. Adminship is a very big deal in April 2008, largely as a result of a series of ArbCom decisions which have handled thorny issues by empowering the Platonic "any uninvolved administrator" with extraordinary discretion. It's entirely reasonable to oppose people who haven't satisfactorily demonstrated a grasp of core policies and conflict resolution before requesting the tools. You wouldn't give someone a drivers' license because they can change a tire, would you?

• Watchlist problem articles, even if you don't participate. Agenda-based POV-pushing thrives on a lack of outside eyes. The more these issues devolve into back-and-forth shouting matches, the less effective we are at dealing with them.

• It's not hard to identify agenda accounts which place advocacy for their POV above Wikipedia's policies. It's really not. If you observe such behavior, then request outside input, here or via WP:RFC/U, sooner rather than later. It will not be pretty - in this recently-closed ArbCom case, I spent 6 months dealing with an obvious agenda account at every level of dispute resolution, only to be accused of "biting a newbie" when the situation ended up with ArbCom - but it can be done. MastCell Talk 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I'm cherrypicking the most useful contributions to the subpage to post here. Avruch ^T 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do sort of object. I posted a fairly strong response to that wishy-washy statement by MastCell, and something which I think was three times as useful:

"Not hard to identify agenda accounts"? "will and energy"? What universe are you living in? If you had happened to step by recent AfDs sourced entirely to CAMERA quotefarms, you would have noticed that they became such a mess that people cheerfully closed them as no consensus keeps. Will and energy are strikingly lacking in the average AfD closer - naturally, these AfDs are hardly the straightforward closes one expects, nor are they scrutinised by higher-up muckety-mucks like that of some WR rabble-rouser. How will the standard mechanisms deal with that? When further up this page we have Durova cheerfully defending an extraordinarily tendentious editor she's mentoring, who's singlehandedly derailed normal academic sourcing on a dozen articles? When any admin is 'involved' if at any point they've edited these articles? When these "agenda accounts" are being taught to wikilawyer in such a way that it will not be easy to demonstrate, in the face of the usual cheesy uproar about character assassination and rushing to judgment and lynch mobs, that they have an agenda over and above WP's? Patience-schmatience.

As far as I can see, that is particularly relevant to all this concern. Frankly, Zeq's been a problem for years, and we all know it. Nobody else who's established appears implicated, but there are a couple of obvious corollaries if one accepts the "leaked" emails, on which I am agnostic.

We should not waste our time trying to locate which of Zeq's edits are disruptive, and then wikilawyering over how disruptive they are, and whether PalestineRemembered is more disruptive, and so on, when there is every indication that the assumption of good faith no longer applies. When a reasonable number of people think he is editing in bad faith, there is no alternative but to ask him to stop. I fully expect this to be just the first of many such efforts from diverse groups, and its important to set a tone now. Remember, we aren't here to give a fair trial, or due process. We have neither the resources, the time, the mechanisms, nor, frankly, the ability to do so, and pretending to do so would be a travesty. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with your blockquoted comments, and made somewhat similar arguments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and elsewhere, particularly as regards "involved admins". For which I was tarred, feathered, and denounced as an anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian shill (cf. [119]). It's so nice to hear that I've migrated far enough to be called "wishy-washy", though. I must be doing something right. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No, wishy-washy was a bit too emphatic. I admit that for some reason I've been wanting to use the phrase in conversation for days. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have some kind of defence mechanism against organized groups that plan to have their people start editing Wikipedia while concealing their relationship to the group. This is essentially the mass use of meatpuppets. It's no fun to participate in an AfD that's become the target of an organized group. Luckily the organized groups are usually incompetent enough that it's not a serious threat, at least for AfDs. It's more of a concern when there is a diffuse set of articles and it's hard to keep track of a systematic POV campaign against those articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch by cherrypicking Mastcell's comments you have missed out the fact that she actually supports Zep's block (as do I, along with measures to nip this in the bud by extending it to his cohorts, and I don't think that's an inappropriate term to use given the very real situation we are faced with here, though I refuse of course to specifically name anyone as such at this stage.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I see MastCell supporting a topic ban only. Zeq may have earned himself a block just by his work on that subpage, but I don't see a good reason to go using these supposedly authentic emails posted by an outside and clearly ideologically opposed group to block, ban or out editors whose conduct bears no relation to Zeq's. Avruch ^T 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - no wonder my ears were burning. For the record, my opinion was that it sets an extremely dangerous precedent to sanction someone on the basis of an email exchange reproduced on a partisan and unreliable website. I am not familiar with Zeq or his behavior. If he's otherwise a long-term problematic, partisan editor of the sort which are all too common on Israeli-Arab topics, then he should be topic-banned under the ArbCom provisions, emails notwithstanding. It's not exactly a newsflash that there is off-wiki canvassing on Israeli-Arab topics; this is the tip of the iceberg. I'm absolutely not happy about it, but the question is how we can most constructively deal with it. My point was this: single-purpose and agenda-driven accounts are remarkably easy to detect. I think it would be a better use of time to focus on identifying and dealing constructively with existing agenda accounts and POV problems, rather than running ourselves in circles and working up a fever pitch about an email exchange of questionable provenance on a partisan website. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be going out on a witch hunt, however I do feel we should be particularly wary of any sort of orchestrated attack. Vandals and POV pushers themselves require no extra attention, but if they have in fact "plotted" to do all this, then we should obviously be on guard. In any case, it's our nature to respond and defend, not go on the "offensive". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my thoughts in the Evidence? section. At the very least, admin/s need to make clear the sekret 'reliable source's evidence has been confirmed by others, and everyone on there needs to go to formatting and summarization school, it's shocking that the block justification is just linked to that unreadable mess of a page. MickMacNee (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes, please

Three users are now under sanction because of this off-Wiki astroturfing campaign by a troll organization. Please review the subpage. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone to arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 216.47.88.66 has posted nothing except "spirit shop" linkspams to a number of school articles. This has happened in two batches over a period of a day, so it isn't a one-time thing. I've cleaned up the mess, but is there a chance that this IP is sufficiently static that it can be blocked? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account name suggests single-purpose account. Hasn't made any productive edits, and history so far, and name, suggests it won't. John Nevard (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive, vandalism and obvious WP:POINT across multiple articles in rapid succession. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reported to WP:AIV and vandal was indef blocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Prank_phone_calls, but I'm going to post it again because no one is paying attention.

Briefly, there are three users involved: User:Supernatural3, User:Bryanwood343, and User:Specialwolf. All three have very similar user pages and likewise have a history of no productive edits to Wikipedia, just creating inappropriate pages and editing each other's user pages. They might well be the same person.

All 3 posted 2 phone numbers on their user pages. On the first page, User:Supernatural3, and administrator did remove the numbers from history (through deletion) but they are still there for the other 2. They should be deleted immediately. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this needs oversight right away. Numbers are real, and do go back to a real number in one user's town, so this probably constitutes harrassment, and the number's in enough revisions that the user pages ought to be deleted outright. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Two of the user pages have some identical text, none of these users has any meaningful project or article space edits and at least one looks like a sockpuppet of another. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed They're all the same nitwit, or at least they edit from the same school and same IPs within minutes of each other. Thatcher 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to hurry up and oversight that page away, because if it's all one loser doing it, it's a sure bet that those aren't HIS OWN phone numbers. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the pages, they contained personal attacks of people. I'm going to block the users as disruptive accounts, unless anyone complains (feel free to overturn it). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems like an appropriate response to Beavis and Butt-head-type nonsense. I did not want to overreact, or to overstep policy, but I did not want Wikipedia to be a means of phone harassment for someone when I found the numbers posted. At best these users/this user was using Wikipedia for social networking. Edison (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clean up the recent sequence of moves of Arabic numerals performed by Agnistus (talk · contribs)? Not only is the current title (Aryabhatan numberals) misspelled, but it's also a brand-new neologism with zero ghits ("Aryabhatan numerals").

I'm requesting this here instead of at WP:RM as there's absolutely no consensus for the move (indeed, it wasn't discussed at all on the talk page), and the only reason that I wasn't able to revert it myself was because the redirects have been edited. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his edits and restored the header. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've moved the article back, deleted the spurious redirects, warned the user and move-protected the article. Black Kite 06:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup work. Much appreciated. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editing includes lots of information attributed to one Mr. Karjala that seems to be claiming he was unjustly accused of various things, without citations. I reverted once, I don't want to get into a war here, someone else look. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedRocket reverted the unsourced nonsense, Brian then reverted RedRocket and continued. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also tried to talk to the user on his talk page, but based on what I've seen from him (including his IP contributions) I'm not sure he's going to listen. It might be good for an admin to keep an eye on it. Once it calms down over there, the article needs a good rewrite, anyway. Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this user is editing an article that contains content about him (under the critics section) and actually linking to his own website as a reference, doesn't that make this a pretty clear WP:COI case? Again, I don't want to edit war there, but an admin's help or advice would be appreciated. Redrocket (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, allegations about mafia connections, Christian leadership, psychological issues, all for living people and all without sources. Great. Just wiped the whole thing out and let's start it over properly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Karjala's user page. He claims to be a defrocked cabal member or some such, and therefore knows all this stuff by personal experience. In fact the article and his user page go fairly well together and make a more cohesive story than the article does at this point. I have some doubts that this will come out well, but I'm willing to give him room for a while IF he will put inline sources on his statements and not just say "the external sources prove this is true" as is his current stance. Currently the article is very poorly written (despite the large number of edits K. has made), but I don't see any point in a good copyedit until K. thinks it tells the True Story correctly. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article now and the talk page. I'll leave it to the talk page to discuss whether his site passes WP:RS anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a community ban of Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for serious violations of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, including soliciting, directing and leading a major off-wiki campaign of organised POV-pushing through single-purpose accounts. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign#Community ban proposal and leave comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a report of a specific incident like the "Phone Numbers" case above, but more a request for comment on proper procedure for cases similar to this. For instance, tonight in an hour or so of change patrolling I came across 2-3 cases where some jerk has posted a phone number in some random article, claimed it was his, possibly gave what he claimed was his name, and then said something like "I'm horny, call me now!"

This isn't an isolated case, I come across a couple of these most every day. I've usually been doing an immediate AIV report with "personal information" as a reason and then reverting or blanking as necessary. But I don't know of this is the best thing to do or ever the right thing to do. Will this necessarily get the diff removed by whoever handles the ticket at AIV? Will analysis get done and Oversight get called if needed? Should something else be done instead?

I'm not a fan of a rule for every thing and everything a rule, but it seems to me this would be a good case for a semi-formal policy on What To Do. Maybe it exists and I don't know about it?

Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight usually isn't necessary. Any admin can delete the revisions. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spadge47 is vandalising Walt Disney article ( see [120] [121] [122]) inspite of repeated warnings. I request an admin to block the user...thanxGprince007 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please take issues of simple vandalism to WP:AIV. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at the above's recent history. I have reverted twice. Now, I'm not quite sure what is going on there. Giano (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected now, but looks like a good-faith attempt to provide pop-ups in French, the French wikipedia already has an article, but much shorter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that, but was not sure - I don't think it's a proper vandal, but whatever he was doing was beyond my limited knowledge. Giano (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask about the continued editing by the students at Nelson County High School that are posting bogus things on the page. Even though the editing was blocked to annonymous users from our school IP address, students have started making accounts and are using them to edit the page. I reset the page to what it is supposed to be, but is there a way to look this page permanently unless the person is an admin? I hope that I am in the right place for this.

I've added Nelson County, Virginia to my watchlist to more conveniently revert and block. If this is just high school vandals, once they see that they can't achieve anything, they'll probably get bored and go back to throwing stones at cats. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History: Two Ip addresses Special:Contributions/86.129.31.62 and Special:Contributions/86.145.219.221 were blocked today and yesterday for making multiple disruptive changes in articles like Video CD, DVD and CD Video. Repeated warnings were ignored. After the second IP was block User:Argus-Bot appeared making the exact same edits on the articles. They have not responded to talk page messages, and continue to disruptively edit with no edit summaries. I am also weary of reverting the edits at this point given how constantly the page is being vandalized. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further addition: Argus-Bot has copied the entire Video CD article to Category:Video CD for some reason. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I edited my above post to be more concise. I'm concerned this complaint may be seen as a "content" issue, but I think the scope is larger as this person has disruptively edited these articles multiple times to the point of being temporarily blocked AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diff to a message left on my talk page. Appparently, it's an agrument with a vandal or something... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism there and the newest edit was a week ago. IP has been warned about making personal attacks though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note regarding that article. It appears to have been the target of a coordinated attack today. Please see the last 250 edits. Enigma ^message Review 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still vandalism there, see this diff: [124]. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Some admin please remove the last sentence from the "Jerseys" section. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: in a situation like this, where there's an apparent coordinated attack, are we blocking registered users on sight? 'cuz several of them were indeffed without warning, or with one warning after one edit; I warned a couple of them (trying to follow the general procedure for blocking), who were then blocked without further edits after the article was protected, and I feel silly now for not doing it myself. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling of this type needs to be dealt with severely, I believe. They can always request unblocking. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, a few of the users involved with this also vandalized the Jim Tressel article earlier in the week. I saw in some of the edits references to a local Detroit radio show, and I'm wondering if the hosts of this show are telling people to go vandalize the pages. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain a lot. By the way, one IP went so far as to vandalize the entry at WP:RPP. Enigma ^message Review 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and blocked the obvious perpetrators on sight. There weren't a great deal of them so that should slow down the vandal edits and I think it would be safe to unprotect the article soon. Doubt a user involved in such an attack would become a great contributor in the future if they low enough to coordinate disruption with other users.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I go back and warn all the vandals, but in this case there are simply too many anon vandals involved. The accounts are all indef-blocked, and that's the important part, I guess. Enigma ^message Review 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]